William Telfer Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa 2006

Cyril of Jerusalem andNemesius of Emesa

General Editors

John Baillie (1886-1960) served as President of the WorldCouncil of Churches, a member of the British Council ofChurches, Moderator of the General Assembly of theChurch of Scotland, and Dean of the Faculty of Divinity atthe University of Edinburgh.

John T. McNeffl (1885-1975) was Professor of the History ofEuropean Christianity at the University of Chicago and thenAuburn Professor of Church History at Union TheologicalSeminary in New York.

Henry P. Van Dusen (1897-1975) was an early and influen-tial member of the World Council of Churches and servedat Union Theological Seminary in New York as RooseveltProfessor of Systematic Theology and later as President.

THE LIBRARY OF CHRISTIAN CLASSICS

Cyril of Jerusalemand

Nemesius of Emesa

Edited by

WILLIAM TELFER

© 1955 SCM Press

Paperback reissued 2006 in the United States of America byWestminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit-ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrievalsystem, without permission in writing from the publisher. For infor-mation, address SCM-Canterbury Press Ltd., 9-17 St. Alban's Place,London, Nl ONX, UK.

Cover design by designpointinc.com

Published by Westminster John Knox PressLouisville, Kentucky

This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the AmericanNational Standards Institute Z39.48 standard.©

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

United States Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ison file at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

ISBN-13: 978-0-664-23082-1ISBN-10: 0-664-23082-2

GENERAL EDITORS5 PREFACE

The Christian Church possesses in its literature an abundantand incomparable treasure. But it is an inheritance thatmust be reclaimed by each generation. THE LIBRARY OFCHRISTIAN CLASSICS is designed to present in the Englishlanguage, and in twenty-six volumes of convenient size, aselection of the most indispensable Christian treatises writtenprior to the end of the sixteenth century.

The practice of giving circulation to writings selected forsuperior worth or special interest was adopted at the beginningof Christian history. The canonical Scriptures were themselvesa selection from a much wider literature. In the Patristicera there began to appear a class of works of compilation (oftendesigned for ready reference in controversy) of the opinionsof well-reputed predecessors, and in the Middle Ages manysuch works were produced. These medieval anthologies actuallypreserve some noteworthy materials from works otherwise lost.

In modern times, with the increasing inability even of thosetrained in universities and theological colleges to read Latinand Greek texts with ease and familiarity, the translation ofselected portions of earlier Christian literature into modernlanguages has become more necessary than ever; while thewide range of distinguished books written in vernaculars suchas English makes selection there also needful. The efforts thathave been made to meet this need are too numerous to be notedhere, but none of these collections serves the purpose of thereader who desires a library of representative treatises spanningthe Christian centuries as a whole. Most of them embraceonly the age of the Church Fathers, and some of them havelong been out of print. A fresh translation of a work already

9

IO GENERAL EDITORS PREFACE

translated may shed much new light upon its meaning. Thisis true even of Bible translations despite the work of manyexperts through the centuries. In some instances old translationshave been adopted in this series, but wherever necessary ordesirable, new ones have been made. Notes have been suppliedwhere these were needed to explain the author's meaning. Theintroductions provided for the several treatises and extractswill, we believe, furnish welcome guidance.

JOHN BAILLIEJOHN T. MCNEILLHENRY P. VAN DUSEN

To

MELLICE,

WHO HEARD ME MY INTRODUCTIONS

CONTENTS

CYRIL OF JERUSALEMpage

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . 19

SELECTIONS FROM THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES

1. The Introductory Lecture, or Procatechesis . . 64

2. Lecture 1. On the temper of mind requisite forbaptism. Sections 1-5 . . . • • 77

3. Lecture 11. On penitence and remission of sins andconcerning the Adversary. Sections 1-12, 19and 20 . . . . . . . 81

4. Lecture in. On baptism. Sections 1, 5-7, 10-14 . 89

5. Lecture iv. On the (ten) dogmas . . . 98

6. Lecture v. On Faith. Sections 1-4, 10-13 . . 1 2 0

7. Lecture vi. Of the Monarchy of God. Sections 1-7 126

8. Lecture x. On the clause, "And in one Lord JesusChrist". Sections 3-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 20 . . 131

9. Lecture xi. On the Son of God as true God, only-begotten before all ages, by whom all things weremade. Sections 6-12, 22-24 • I 4 °

10. Lecture xv. On the clause, "He will come in gloryto judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdomshall have no end", and concerning Antichrist.Sections 1-22, 24, 27, 29, 31-33 . . 147

13

14 CONTENTS

11. Lecture xvi. On the clause, "and in one Holy Spirit,the Paraclete, who spake by the prophets".Sections 1-4, 22-31 . . . . . 1 6 7

12. Lecture xvm. On the resurrection of the flesh, theCatholic Church, and eternal life. Sections 1-4,16-21, 22-34 . . . . . . 178

A LETTER OF CYRIL TO CONSTANTIUS . . . 193

NEMESIUS OF EMESA

G E N E R A L I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . 2 0 3

O N T H E N A T U R E O F M A N

(The chapters, with their headings, are as in the manuscripts.The work is here, for the first time, broken up into seventysections of approximately equal length. The section numbersin relation to the chapters are indicated below, after thechapter-headings).

I . O f t h e n a t u r e o f m a n . I - I O . . • 2 2 4

I I . O f t h e s o u l . 1 1 - 1 9 . . . . . 2 5 7

I I I . O f t h e u n i o n o f sou l w i t h b o d y . 2 0 - 2 2 . 2 9 3

I V . O f t h e b o d y . 2 3 . . . . 3 0 5

V . O f t h e e l e m e n t s . 2 4 - 2 6 . . . . 3 0 7

V I . O f t h e f a c u l t y o f i m a g i n a t i o n . 2 7 . . 3 2 0

V I I . O f s i g h t . 2 8 , 2 9 . . . . . 3 2 4

V I I I . O f fee l ing . 3 0 . . . . 331

I X . O f t a s t e . 31 . . . . . . 3 3 5

X . O f h e a r i n g . 31 . . . . . 3 3 6

X I . O f s m e l l . 31 . . . . . - 3 3 7

X I I . O f t h e f a c u l t y o f i n t e l l e c t . 32 . . . 338*

XIII . Of the faculty of memory. 32 . . . 339

XIV. Of thought and expression. 33 . . . 344

XV. A further way of dividing the soul. 34 . 345

CONTENTS 15

XVI , Of the irrational part of the soul, also called

the passions. 35 . . . . . 347

XVII . Of concupiscence. 36 . . . . 350

X V I I I . Of pleasures. 37-39 . . . . 352

X I X . Of grief. 40 359

X X . Of fear. 40 360

X X I . Of anger. 40 361X X I I . Of the irrational part of the soul over which

reason has no control. 41 . . 362

X X I I I . Of the nutritive faculty. 41 . . . 3 6 2

X X I V . Of the pulses. 42 366

XXV. Of the generative faculty, or concerningsemen. 42 . . • . . . 368

X X V I . Another way of dividing up the facultiesthat control the life of a living creature. 43 371

X X V I I . Of impulsion depending upon the will, alsocalled the appetitive faculty. 43 . . 371

X X V I I I . Of respiration. 44, 45 . . . . 375(In spite of there being no separate chapter-headingto Section 45, it is actually a chapter whose headingmight be, Of different parts and organs.)

XXIX. Of voluntary and involuntary acts. 46 . 382

XXX. Of involuntary acts. 46 . . . . 383

XXXI. Of the involuntary act that is due to

ignorance. 47 . . . . . 386

XXXII. Of acts that are voluntary. 48 . . . 389

XXXIII. Of an act of choice. 49 . . . . 391

XXXIV. What things are subject for deliberation. 50 394

XXXV. Concerning destiny (Heimarmene) .51 . 397

XXXVI. Of the dependence of destiny upon thestars. 52 4°°

l6 CONTENTS

X X X V I I . Of those who say that the choice of actionslies with us, but that the outcome of thoseactions is destined. 53 . . . . 403

X X X V I I I . Of the teaching of Plato on destiny. 54, 55 . 405

X X X I X . Of freewill (autexousia), or the power ofinitiative. 56 . . . . . 4 1 0

XL. Of the range of things concerning which we

have free will. 57. . . . . 4 1 3

XLI . Why we were given free-will. 58, 59 . . 417

XLI I . Of providence. 60-62 . . . . 423

X L I I I . What is providence ? 63 . . . 431

XLIV. Enquiry into the scope of providence. 64-70 432Note: The figures M.35.1—38.7 at the head of Section 1 represents

the page and line of the page in Matthaei's edition where theGreek text of the section begins and ends; and so for all sections.

Acknowledgment: Special thanks are due, on the part of the trans-lator, to Dr. J . Dixon Boyd, Fellow of Clare College andProfessor of Anatomy in the University of Cambridge, for counselon points of medical history and on the medical knowledge ofNemesius.

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . 454

INDEXES

G e n e r a l . . . . • . . - 4 5 7

B i b l i c a l R e f e r e n c e s . . . . . . 4 6 3

List of Ground-plans, etc.

G r o u n d P l a n A . . . . . . . 4 4Conjectural Plan of the buildings on Golgotha.

E l e v a t i o n B . . . . . . . . 4 9Conjectural South Elevation of the buildings on the Golgotha

site, with the south enclosing wall and the baptistry taken away.L i n e - d r a w i n g G . . . . . . . 5 3

The buildings on the Golgotha site as seen by the artist of theMadaba mosaic

CYRIL

BISHOP OF JERUSALEM

General Introduction

THE AUTHOR

OUR ASSURED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CYRIL IS THAThe was bishop of Jerusalem in the second half of thefourth Christian century, and that he died in that office

on 18 March, 386. Of the circumstances of his early life we haveno certain knowledge. He shows acquaintance with things whichhappened in Jerusalem when he must have been a boy, but thatdoes not prove that he was then resident in Jerusalem. There is,in fact, some reason for thinking that his place of upbringingwas Caesarea in Palestine. For, later in his life, he seems tohave been the recipient of an appeal for help by a section of theChurch at Caesarea. The relations between the sees of Caesareaand Jerusalem were not such that Caesareans would naturallyturn to the bishop of Jerusalem.1 And when, presently, it wasGelasius, Cyril's sister's son, who was consecrated by Cyril tobe bishop of Caesarea, we have ground for the conjecture thatCyril was Caesarean by origin. His commemoration in theSynaxary2 says that he "was born of pious parents professing the

1 The see of Aelia (as Jerusalem had been called since the days of Hadrian)was suffragan to Caesarea. When, in 325, the Synod of Nicaea gave Aeliaa status of honour, as the holy city of Jerusalem, it left it ecclesiastic-ally suffragan to Caesarea. As the years brought more and moreimportance to the see of Jerusalem, the relationship between the twosees grew uneasy. Gaesareans would not, without good reason, havetaken a step which flattered the see of Jerusalem.

2 Synaxary is the title of the liturgical book containing short notices ofsaints and subjects of other commemoration in order through the year.Many of these notices originated in antiquity and may depend upondocuments now lost. The commemoration of Cyril began very early.This sentence in his Synaxary notice, if taken strictly, implies (what wemight expect) that in 337, when Constantine died, Cyril had reachedmanhood.

19

2O CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

orthodox faith, and was bred up in the same in the reign ofConstantine". The statement is entirely plausible, for Cyrilshows no signs of having been a convert from paganism inadult life.

In 326, the favour of Constantine towards the Holy Land, asa centre of Christian devotion and unity, began to make thefortune of Jerusalem as the Christian Holy City. To meet its newresponsibilities, the Church of Aelia3 had need of an able andcultured clergy, capable of handling a great and growing bodyof ascetics of both sexes, who had taken up their permanentabode in the neighbourhood, as well as caring for the holy sitesand acting as hosts and chaplains to streams of pilgrims nowarriving from every part of Christendom. The emperor's chiefagent for the development of his Holy Land schemes wasEusebius, "the father of Church history", bishop of Caesarea.4

That the Caesarean bishop should commend a young Caesarean,of good Christian family and personal promise, to the bishop ofJerusalem, for diaconate, has no improbability, particularlyjust after 326, when imperial benefactions to the church ofJerusalem made both the need and opportunity for increasingits clergy. And at this time Cyril, who must, from other con-siderations, have been born between 310 and 315, would havereached an age to leave home and enter a bishop's household.The matter remains one of conjecture. Cyril's family may havebelonged to Aelia, and have fyad a married daughter living inCaesarea.5

For Cyril's early clerical career at Jerusalem we are beholdento a very unfriendly witness. This is Jerome, who resided withinthe bishopric of Jerusalem from 386 to 420. In 392, he quarrelled

3 After the failure of the Jewish rising of A.D. I 35, the ruins of the city ofJerusalem were forbidden to Jews, and a Gentile community, containinga proportion of Christians, occupied them. The township thus constitutedreceived from the emperor Hadrian the name of Aelia. At first, the littleChurch of Aelia must have seemed one of the most insignificant inPalestine. But its importance was increasing, and the bishop of Aelia hadbeen an important suffragan of Caesarea, for a century before the daysof Cyril.

4 Eusebius of Caesarea, who had lent support to Arius and his associatesafter their breach with their bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, appearedat Nicaea in the character of defendant. He received somewhat surprisingprotection from the emperor, which is, however, the less surprising ifConstantine already saw a use for him in connection with his ownschemes.

5 The fact that Cyril appears in many respects to be a disciple of Eusebiusof Caesarea does not resolve the uncertainty as to Cyril's place of birth.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 21

violently with Cyril's successor and admirer, bishop John ofJerusalem. Jerome was therefore prepared to twist whatever heknew about Cyril to his disadvantage. So, in his Chronicle, againstthe eleventh year of the sons of Constantine,6 he made the entry,"Maximus, who succeeded Macarius as fortieth bishop ofJerusalem, died, this year. Thereafter the succession was Arian:first, Cyril, replaced by Eutychius; then Cyril returned, andwas next replaced by Irenaeus; Cyril reigned again for a thirdtime, and was replaced by Hilary, afterwards returning for afourth and last period. This Cyril was ordained presbyter byMaximus. After the death of Maximus, Acacius, bishop ofCaesarea, with other Arian bishops, promised Cyril the bishop-ric if he would repudiate his ordination at the hands of Maximus.So he ministered as a deacon in the church, and for this impietywas rewarded with the see. Maximus, on his deathbed, hadmade Heraclius his successor, and him Cyril cajoled into re-verting to the rank of presbyter from that of bishop." Thisnotice is malicious, especially in representing Cyril's history asa squabble within Arianism, but every consideration is againstits being inaccurate in its assertions of fact. It will be noted thatno doubts attached to Cyril's diaconate. He was made deaconeither by Macarius, or by Maximus before his episcopate be-came compromised in the eyes of the comprovincial bishops.We may provisionally adopt the first alternative. Macarius wasbishop of Jerusalem from 311 (or 312) and died shortly beforethe synod of Tyre in 335. If he made Cyril deacon, it is unlikelyto have been much before 330. Macarius was succeeded by asenior presbyter of Jerusalem, Maximus, who had been a con-fessor and suffered mutilation, with the loss of an eye, in thelast persecution. He must have been well on in the fifties whenhe became bishop, and his long association with Macariusguarantees that his doctrinal leanings were anti-Arian. Never-theless, one of the first acts of his episcopate was to attend thesynod of Tyre, where he became implicated in passing sentenceof deposition upon Athanasius. It is very likely that Cyril wasin attendance upon him at this time. The new basilica built bythe munificence of Constantine on Golgotha, afterwards to beknown as the Martyry, was now complete, and the whole

• These were Constantine II, Gonstans, and Constantius, who, after theirfather's death in 337, divided the empire between them, Constantineruling in the west, Gonstans in the centre, and Constantius in the east.Constantine was killed in 340, and from then to 350 the western two-thirds of the empire were under Constans.

22 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

company of bishops came straight from deposing Athanasiusat Tyre to dedicate the Martyry as the new cathedral ofJerusalem, and incidentally to enthrone Maximus therein. Andin these long-to-be-remembered solemnities7 Cyril certainly hada part. From the Martyry, the bishops dated an encyclical inwhich they declared that they received back into the Churchthe Arians.8

It need not be supposed that either Maximus or Cyril wasinvolved by these events in any change of doctrinal allegiance.The trial of Athanasius at Tyre was not for heresy, but for"tyranny." The charge concerned his administration of theecclesiastical affairs of Egypt. However much some of his judgeswere prejudiced on doctrinal grounds, overtly the whole matterwas one of church order. Athanasius was sent into exile byConstantine, who did not allow his see to be filled. Everythingstood open for his restoration by another synod when his faultwas purged. But in 338 Athanasius, supported by the west,regained possession at Alexandria in contempt of the synod thathad deposed him, and so, in the eyes of all easterns, probablyat this time including Maximus and Cyril, he appeared to be,ipso facto and irretrievably, self-deposed.

The eastern episcopate met again in synod at Antioch in 341.Maximus did not attend.9 Already, it may be, doctrinal con-siderations were bringing him over onto the Athanasian side.10

Through the pilgrims, a bishop of Jerusalem was renderedsensitive to western opinion, and Pope Julius in synod hadvindicated the cause of Athanasius in 340. The westerns sawall the irregularity in the synod of Tyre, and none in Athanasius,and so suspected all who condemned him of being unsound infaith. In 342 a synod was called at Sardica by the two surviving

7 So Sozomen, Church History, ii.25, and The Pilgrimage of Etheria (end).And see Journal of Ecclesiastical History, V. (1954), pp. 78-86.

8 Athanasius, Apology against the Arians, 84. Arius himself they could notreadmit in person, for he had died in Constantinople in the Spring of 335.(W. Telfer, "Paul of Constantinople," Harvard Theological Review, 1950,pp. 52-54.)

9 This synod, held in connection with the dedication of the new cathedralof Antioch, the "golden church" started by Constantine and finishedunder Constantius, was representative of the eastern episcopate, deter-minedly anti-Athanasian and resentful at the support lent by Pope Juliusand the western bishops alike to Athanasius and others upon whomeastern synods had passed sentence.

10 Socrates and Sozomen, church historians at Constantinople, who, about430, each published a history designed to continue that of Eusebius,expressly give this explanation of the absence of Maximus.


emperors, Constans and Constantius, to which were bidden thebishops both of east and west. Athanasius, whom Constantinehad caused to be driven from Alexandria, was now under theprotection of Constans, and was sitting with the western bishopswhen the eastern bishops arrived. When the easterns discoveredthis fact, they withdrew in a body. But Maximus of Jerusalem,and fourteen other bishops of Palestine, did not withdraw, butsat in synod with the western bishops, in company withAthanasius. The breach between east and west was grave, and,from this time on, the attitude of the easterns towards Athanasius,and towards the westerns for supporting him, hardened.11

A fortiori, the Palestinian bishops found themselves unpopularwith their neighbours.

In 346, under western pressure, Constantius was fain to orderthe restoration of Athanasius to his see. Athanasius returnedoverland, and passed through Jerusalem on his way home;"where," he says, "I met with the bishops of Palestine, who,when they had called a synod at Jerusalem, received mecordially." He then gives the text of a letter which thesePalestinian bishops sent to congratulate the Church of Alex-andria on receiving its bishop again. Maximus of Jerusalemheads the list of sixteen signatories, from which the name ofAcacius of Caesarea is conspicuously absent.12 Of those whosigned, some were perhaps less cordial than they seemed. Forit was not long before Maximus appears to be alone, in Palestine,in his support of Athanasius. With this history in mind, we canreturn to the entry in Jerome's Chronicle and find it moreintelligible. Maximus, dying, consecrated Heraclius to be hissuccessor. There were, that is, no other episcopal consecrators,and the succession was utterly irregular. It is clear that, at thelast, Maximus had his back to the wall, in regard to theAthanasian cause, and saw no hope but in wresting the succes-sion from the hands of the comprovincial bishops. Socrates11 The cause of Athanasius created a tragic misunderstanding between the

Latin-speaking ecclesiastics of the west and the Greek-speaking eccles-iastics of the east, to which the divergences of doctrinal opinion in theArian controversy lent bitterness and obstinacy. The joint synod ofSardica in the Balkans was called in the hope that when the two bodiesof bishops sat together, they would find their way to a renewed under-standing. When the easterns withdrew, misunderstanding became, to allintents and purposes, schism.

12 Apology against the Arians, Section 57. Athanasius excepts from the numberof those who welcomed him, two or three Palestinians "of suspectedcharacter5*: in particular, Acacius, who succeeded Eusebius in 337, andhad a more pronounced leaning than he towards Arianism.


asserts that he was actually under synodical sentence ofdeposition,13 which is likely enough. In taking this desperatecourse, Maximus evidently had not carried Cyril with him. Atthe end, Cyril had come to believe that Maximus had forfeitedhis own bishopric in his attachment to the ruined cause ofAthanasius, and that the fatal step had been taken before helaid his hands in ordination upon him, Cyril. In such a view,based solely upon considerations of canon, and church order,the fatal step would appear to be Maximus' desertion from hiseastern colleagues at Sardica. We shall be right, therefore, toassume that Cyril's promotion to the presbyterate took placeabout 343, when he was a little over thirty. After the death ofMaximus, Cyril renounced his priesthood as null and void,thereby causing Acacius of Caesarea, the metropolitan ofPalestine, and the bishops of the Province, to regard him asecclesiastically sound. That he was able, after they had givenhim regular consecration, not only to persuade Heraclius toabandon his claims to episcopate but actually to retain him toserve under him as presbyter, argues that he, Cyril, was thewhole-hearted choice of the Church of Jerusalem. What it doesnot argue is that Cyril had sacrificed doctrinal loyalties toobtain the bishopric. Doctrinal loyalties were still a matter overwhich many, if not most, kept their own counsel. The matterson which everyone could still see how to take sides, publicly,were those of church order. In 350, Constans, the supporter ofthe western bishops, and so of the Athanasian cause, was slainby the usurper Magnentius. To many in the eastern Church,this must have seemed like the sentence of God against Athan-asius; for the men of that age were given to interpreting themind of providence by the course of public events. There couldbe no better illustration of this tendency than Cyril's letter toConstantius, announcing the "sign" seen in Jerusalem on 7 May,351, of which the text forms part of the present selection.14

The episcopate of Cyril thus began altogether propitiously. Buthis sky was soon overcast, owing to the growing jealousy ofAcacius. We may suppose that, at the time of Cyril's election,the bishop of Caesarea supposed that the new bishop of Jerusalemwould be very much his man,15 particularly as having enjoyedhis support against Heraclius. And Cyril owed him obedience

*3 Socrates, Church History, ii.38.14 pp. 197.15 If Cyril was of Caesarean origin, that would help to explain the confidence

of Acacius.


under the terms of the Seventh Canon of Nicaea.16 But tensionarose, in which Acacius had the support of the other bishopsof the province. Those who explain the church history of thisperiod wholly in terms of doctrine say that Acacius and hiscolleagues were Arians, and that they knew that Cyril was not.But what was talked about at the time was church property.

A bishop's discretion in expending the funds in the churchchest was almost unlimited, but it could be a matter of complaint,and, in the end, of complaint to the bishops of the province.Now the temporalities of the Church of Jerusalem were unique.On the one hand there were great assets arising from the lavishimperial gifts, and those of the pilgrims. On the other werespecial liabilities, in the form of the great body of "poorsaints," the resident ascetics, encouraged to reside near the holysites, and, in time of need, looking to the bishop of Jerusalemas their only earthly father and protector. In 354 or 355, itappears that there was famine. Cyril, according to Socrates,Sozomen, and Theodoret, sold church property.17 Sozomen,who is most favourable to Cyril, insists that he did it to feedhis "poor," and that the things sold were rich curtains from thechurch, and other sacred ornaments, and therefore, be it noted,all imperial gifts. Socrates, at this point, draws upon a recog-nizable and very reliable source,18 and says that for two yearsCyril refused to answer a summons to account for his actionsto the provincial synod, and that, finally, in 357, the synoddeposed him from his see, in his absence. Upon this, Cyril gavenotice of appeal to the emperor, and betook himself to Tarsus,where he was hospitably received by Silvanus, the bishop ofTarsus, and soon became a great favourite with the Tarsians.19

16 The canon says, "As custom and ancient tradition show that the bishopof Aelia ought to be honoured, let him have precedence in honour,without prejudice to the proper dignity of the metropolitan see." Nothingseems to explain the passing of this canon so well as that it was calculatedto assist the plans of the emperor, without being to the detriment ofEusebius.

i? Socrates, ii.40. Sozomen, iv.25. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria,composed a Church History to supplement that of Eusebius soon after 440,in which the passage is ii.25.

is viz. the Collection of Synods composed by Sabinus, the semi-Arian bishop ofHeraclea, which is lost except as it can be recognized in the extracts whichSocrates and Sozomen made from it. Sozomen named this source, and ithas so marked a character that it can probably be detected wherever used.

19 According to Theodoret, ii.22, Silvanus answered the protest of Acaciusat his harbouring Cyril by saying that the people would not endure hisbeing sent away.


The bishops of Palestine put Eutychius in Cyril's throne, whileCyril waited for the emperor to commit his cause to a greatersynod. We have here a situation which makes the best sense ifwe think of Cyril as being in the position of Dean of a Royalpeculiar. For his trusteeship of imperial gifts, he was answer-able to the emperor alone. But it is not surprising if the Provin-cial synod saw, in his refusal to answer summons, a proof ofthe rising pride and ambition of the Jerusalem see. For anopportunity to get his cause reviewed Cyril had not very longto wait. In 359, Constantius assembled a synod for the wholeeastern Church, at Seleucia "the rugged," on the coast ofIsauria, no long journey from Tarsus. Thither went Cyril asappellant, but also, it would appear, as having received theimperial summons. Accordingly he took his seat in the synod.Acacius demanded his withdrawal, and a procedural strugglebegan. But Acacius soon felt the synod to be hostile to himself,and withdrew, and in the end, the synod pronounced hisdeposition. Cyril was thus freed to return to Jerusalem, ashaving been cleared by the synod, and Eutychius could notstand his ground against him.20 The next year revealed thefact that the synod of Seleucia had gone contrary to theemperor's wishes, and that his favour was reserved for Acaciusand his associates. Theodoret tells how Acacius took his oppor-tunity to blacken Cyril in the emperor's eyes, and to use Cyril'sdischarge by the synod of Seleucia to blacken the semi-Ariancause which had predominated at Seleucia. Constantius, likeAcacius, was now inclined to doctrine much nearer Arianismthan the conservative "semi-Arian" position. Acacius toldConstantius, Theodoret says, that among the treasures thatCyril had sold was a "holy robe" given to Macarius by Con-stantine, and that this garment had fallen into unsuitablehands.21 Constantius was infuriated and ordered Cyril intoexile, we are not told where.

But at this point some information given by Epiphanius, whowas a Palestinian and likely to be well informed, telling of theinterventions of Cyril on the side of the anti-Arians at Caesarea,suggests that Cyril made use of his return from Seleucia to20 The names of the three men intruded into Cyril's throne vary in different

writers and even in different manuscripts of Jerome's Chronicle. They arehere taken to be Eutychius, Irenaeus, and Hilary. Other sees may havebeen found for them, for we presently find a Eutychius, bishop of Scytho-polis, opposing Cyril in the matter of the succession to the bishopric ofCaesarea.

21 op. ciLy ii.23.


consecrate a certain Philumenus to be bishop of Caesarea, inthe room of Acacius, deposed by the synod.22 Thanks to theemperor, this was a very short-lived victory. But when Con-stantius was succeeded in 361 by Julian the apostate, eccle-siastical fortunes swung round again. Constantius' sentences ofbanishment were cancelled, and Cyril returned to his see forthe second time. Theodoret has an anecdote which shows thatCyril's return journey lay through Antioch,23 which shows thatthe place of his exile lay in the north. The people of Jerusalemmust have been devoted to Cyril, for Irenaeus, whom theAcacian party had only just made bishop in his stead, dis-appears without a trace.

The reign of Julian, while it enabled Cyril's return, soon ledto a new crisis for him in Jerusalem, and one that sets hisacumen in a very bright light. In his fifteenth CatecheticalLecture, on the Second Coming, he pictured Anti-christ as anemperor, to whom, as an enemy of the Church, the Jews wouldrally, and from whom they would obtain the rebuilding of theTemple at Jerusalem, in which, at the last, he would placehimself as the object of their worship. This picture looked as ifit might become actuality in 362. Cyril had, no doubt, a livelysense of the chagrin of the Jews in seeing Jerusalem appro-priated by the Christians as exclusively their holy place. And itsuited Julian's policy of a nominal universal tolerance, to grantthe Jews aid towards rebuilding the Temple. The undertakingfailed. Christian writers allege supernatural intervention, andstories of this sort obtained credence outside the Church.24 Per-haps some credit should be given to determined resistance onthe part of the Christian population of Jerusalem led by Cyril.With the death of Julian in 363, the hopes of the Jews foundered.

Cyril was left in peace through the short reign of Jovian, andthe years in which Valens was engaged in consolidating hishold upon the eastern empire. In 366 Acacius died, after fiveyears in which the Jerusalem Church had gone its own waywithout him. And now Cyril stepped in to give him a successorin the person of his nephew Gelasius. But in the following year,Valens adopted the ecclesiastical policy of Constantius exactly

22 Panarion, Heresy 73. Section 37. 23 op. cit., iii.io.24 The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus (Liber return gestarum, xxiii.i)

tells of thunderbolts falling on the foundations, and says, "Thus thevery elements, as if by some fate, repelled the attempt, and it was aban-doned." Christian writers are more explicit in their interpretation of thealleged incidents.


as he had laid it down. Cyril's banishment was reimposed andGelasius was driven from Caesarea. The ruling Arian partyfilled the see of Caesarea with a certain Euzoius, not the mostfamous of that name, but, according to Jerome, a person ofsome literary distinction.25 Hilary nominally ruled the Churchof Jerusalem, though, as it appears, the provosts of the greatchurches of imperial foundation found opportunity to asserttheir independence of him and of one another, to the greatdetriment of the order and religion of the holy places. And thisunhappy state of things continued until the death of Valens in378. For Cyril, these eleven years were not years of total loss.His place of banishment enabled him to attain completesolidarity with that body of bishops of north Syria and easternAsia Minor which ranged itself, as soon as opportunity wasgiven, behind Meletius, bishop of Antioch, to restore the Nicenefaith. Speaking of the situation in the Church at the time ofValens' death, Sozomen says, "at this period, all the churchesof the east, with the exception of that of Jerusalem, were in thehands of the Arians." 26 In making this exception he infers thatHilary was dead, and possibly that the return of Cyril had beenpermitted before the change in the government. When, in 379,Meletius gathered his momentous synod in Antioch, among itsacts was the sending of Gregory of Nyssa, aided by a grant ofimperial transport from the new and orthodox government ofTheodosius, on a "mission of help" to the Arab churches ofS.E. Palestine. Nyssen undertook also to try and act as arbitra-tor at Jerusalem. He does not say who asked him, but only that"matters were in confusion with the heads of the holy Jerusalemchurches and needed an arbiter." But Cyril was the person towhom the success of the mission was of most interest. GregoryNyssen was a sensitive soul and went home to Cappadocia witha sense of failure and frustration that was probably out of allproportion to the facts. He has poured out his griefs in a letterto an unnamed ascetic in Cappadocia, commonly reckoned asa separate opuscule entitled On pilgrimages, and in a letter tothree ladies living the ascetic life at Jerusalem.27 In the firstof these letters, it is chiefly his bitter disillusionment by what hesaw of Jerusalem pilgrims. His brother Basil had passed through

25 N o . 113 in J e r o m e ' s Famous Men. J e r o m e makes h i m a benefactor to t h eChurch Library of Caesarea, founded by Origen and Pamphi lus .

26 op. cit., vii.2. J e r o m e , Famous Men, No . 112 gives Cyril eight full years ofrestoration.

27 Gregory Nyssen, Epist. xvii,

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 2Q

the Holy Land in 357, the year when Cyril was deposed, andtook home glowing accounts of the spectacle of religion andspirituality which he had seen.28 Now, after thirty years,Nyssen saw conditions of pilgrimage that were anything but anaid to spirituality, while a whole race of brigands battened onthe pilgrims. Moreover it would appear from the second letterthat his arbitration met with hostility from some quarters, ondoctrinal grounds. But despondent as he went away, his inter-vention, with the authority of the synod and of the emperorbehind him, had probably contributed a great deal to therecovery of the unity and concord of the Church of Jerusalemunder Cyril. Cyril's position was further strengthened whenTheodosius called a synod of the whole eastern Church atConstantinople, in 381. If Cyril's personal association withsemi-Arians at Seleucia had caused him for a while to be con-sidered as of that group, his years of banishment had purgedhim, and Sozomen represents him as now taking a leadingplace among the neo-Nicenes. But this does not mean that hehad changed his ground with the years. The doctrine of theLectures that he delivered at the beginning of his episcopate isorthodox by the standards of the synod of 381.29 A secondsession of the synod, in 382, addressed a synodal letter to theChurch of Rome in which Cyril is expressly mentioned asrightful bishop of Jerusalem "the mother of all the churches,"and as one who, over many years and in many places, hadstriven against Arianism.30

Cyril enjoyed four years of peace thereafter, and was suc-ceeded in 386 by John. It may have been ten years later thatthere came to Jerusalem on pilgrimage a great lady from thefar west by name Aetheria.31 She wrote a journal of all that shesaw, addressing it to her sisters in religion in her distant home.What she describes at Jerusalem is a magnificently organizedliturgical community, in which time and place were hallowedin commemoration of the ministry, passion, and triumph ofChrist. Space was hallowed in the linking together of the holysites in one coherent programme of devotion. The "heads of the

28 Basil, Epist . cxxiii. 2.29 Cyril 's or thodoxy has been frequently vindicated; e.g., by J . Lebon, in

Revue d'histoire eccUsiastique, xx (1924), 197 sqq., 357 sqq., or by B. Nieder-berger, Logoslehre des hi. Cyril von Jerusalem (Paderborn, 1923).

30 Theodore t , Church History, v. 9.31 See The Pilgrimage of Etheria, M . L. McGlure and C. L. Feltoe, in the

S.P.C.K. Translat ions of Christ ian Li terature , 1919, in which the journa lof Aetheria is rendered into English, with Introduct ion and notes.


holy Jerusalem churches," at loggerheads in 378 as competitorsfor the attention of pilgrims, were now colleagues in the main-tenance of a co-ordinated piety towards Christ in connectionwith the actual scenes of his saving work.32 And time washallowed in a liturgical calendar, with a climax in Holy Weekand Good Friday leading up to Easter and its octave, and sopassing on to Ascension and Whitsunday. When Cyril firstlectured, there was the Forty-day Fast and Easter, but no HolyWeek or Good Friday. Bishop and people did not go togetherfrom holy place to holy place, according to the subject of theday's commemoration. But in the brilliant development of asacred year in the holy city to which the pages of Aetheria'sjournal bear witness, we have the most impressive monumentto Cyril's genius. And through pilgrims like Aetheria, theinfluence of his work spread throughout Christendom. In thewords of the late Dom Gregory Dix, Jerusalem gave to Christen-dom "the first outline of the public organization of the divineoffice, and the first development of the proper of the seasons."33

CATECHESIS

The preparation of adult converts for baptism in the earlyChurch was long and arduous. Until they came to realize theirneed of what the Church might have to give, enquirers werehandled with much discretion. But when they were ready tosubmit to the conditions attaching to formal instruction, theywere enrolled as catechumens, and admitted to part of theliturgical worship of the Christian congregation. The titlecatechumen derives from the verb katechein, in ordinary use for*'instruct by word of mouth," and so means "a person who isreceiving instruction from a teacher," while the process ofgiving such instruction, or the content of the instruction given,is catechesis. These words had probably been taken for use in atechnical sense in Judaism before they received parallelChristian use, for, in Romans 2:18, Paul speaks of a "catechumenin the Law," meaning an instructed orthodox Jew.

The word catechumen first appears as a regular ecclesiastical32 At this time there were at least seven separate ecclesiastical establishments

in or near Jerusalem; the Martyry, the Eleona, or Church of the Mountof Olives, the Imbomon, or Church of Christ's ascension higher up onthe Mount, the Church of Gethsemane, a church on the road to Bethany,the Lazarium at Bethany itself, and the Church of the Nativity atBethlehem.

33 The Shape of the Liturgy, p . 350 .


term in the opening of the third century, in Tertullian.34 Thecontext shows it to mean an unbaptized person who has beenaccepted by the Church for instruction and training in the hopeof baptism. It shows, also, that catechumens were admitted tothe first part of the liturgy, and dismissed before the offerings.The way of the early Church was to hold back from the outsideworld any detailed knowledge of what Christians believe, andonly to display the Christian way of life and moral principles.35

Thus mere curiosity won nothing for a pagan enquirer. But ifsuch an enquirer was moved by admiration and desire for theChristian way of life to such effect that his Christian friendsbore witness of it to the clergy, these might admit him toinstruction, upon his undertaking to submit himself. His firstinstruction was still predominantly moral, not excluding theexercise in Christian prayer and the instruction by and uponthe liturgical readings which he received by his attendance atthe first part of the liturgy. Instruction of a strictly credalcharacter followed only when the catechumen had proved him-self eager and ready to receive the secret of Christian living. Assoon as the creed had been soundly imparted and learned byheart, the catechumen received baptism and passed into theranks of the faithful. By the fourth century, however, a verygreat change had come over the scene. It was an inevitablechange, resulting from the great increase in the applicationsfor entry into the Church, and had made rapid advance alreadyduring the long period of peace in the second half of the thirdcentury. With the Peace of the Church in 313 began a processof acceleration, in this respect, so that catechumens were nolonger "hand-picked" as of old, and it was quite impracticableto give the same degree of individual personal attention tocatechumens as had been usual in former times. Some regi-mentation of catechesis now became indispensable. And as thesame circumstances that made the instruction of converts more

3* On prescription of heretics, 41, Of the crown, 2, Against Mardon, v. 7. The lastof these passages implies that the distinction between catechumens andfaithful prevailed also among the Marcionites.

35 This reserve with regard to doctrine is notably shown by the instance ofArnobius. Arnobius was an African teacher of rhetoric, and became anenquirer in the Church at Sicca, at the end of the third century. Beforehe could be instructed for baptism, the bishop demanded his compositionof a work in refutation of paganism and the pagan way of life. ThisArnobius did, in his work, Against the Gentiles, The book shows excellentappreciation of the gospel way of life, but the very vaguest acquaintancewith Scripture and Christian doctrine.


difficult, also made it harder to maintain the high standards ofdevotion required from the faithful, a double need was met bythe institution of Lent, which appears to be, quite strictly, adevelopment of the fourth century, though of the first years ofthe century. The Fifth Canon of Nicaea recognizes "the fortydays" before Easter as an understood description of a period ofthe Christian year, without indicating its use or purpose.36 Butit is not long before it is made clear that the forty days are tobe used for the spiritual discipline of the faithful, and for thepreparation of catechumens, approved for the purpose, forbaptism on Easter eve. There is evidence, earlier than the fourthcentury, of some disciplinary and devotional preparation forEaster, by a complete abstention from food for forty hoursbefore the Easter liturgy. The reason for this observance wasthat, for those forty hours, "the Bridegroom had been takenaway."37 And a scriptural reason was, of course, equally forth-coming for the new Lent of forty days. In it the believer followedthe Saviour in his days of fasting in the wilderness.

This prolonged preparation for Easter quickly spread to allparts of the Church, because it contained an idea that met theneed of the Church in that hour. But the one idea clotheditself in local practice in a variety of different usages, and Lent-keeping advanced at differing paces in different parts of theChurch. It is sufficient for our purpose to describe the practiceof the Jerusalem Church at the time when Cyril became bishop.The Jerusalem Lent began eight weeks before Easter. This wasbecause no Sunday or Sabbath (Saturday) could be a fast-day,38

only excepting the Great Sabbath, or Easter Eve. The first fast-day was what we should call the Monday after Sexagesima.There were then five fast-days in each of eight weeks, of whichthe last was the Friday before Easter. And after that Friday'sevening refection, the old and traditional total fast of fortyhours began. This last fast was incumbent upon all who werecapable of enduring it. But the degree of fasting on the fortyLenten fast days was left very much to individual devotion, and

36 According to this Canon, the sentences of excommunication passed bya bishop are to be the subject of review by the Provincial Synod twice inthe year. The first such synod of review is to be held "before the FortyDays." No doubt the purpose of this was to enable excommunication, insuitable cases, to be terminated before Easter, and the Canon showsthat, at least for penitential purposes, a forty-day fast before Easterwas already a recognized institution.

37 M a r k 2:2O.3» That is, a day on which no meal was taken until evening.


was observed very differently by the ascetics and by ordinarylay people. And the observance both rekindled devotion in thefaithful and brought the baptizands to approach with fit mindtheir baptism on Easter eve, now the general day, or rathernight, of Christian initiation. Thus, on the Day of Resurrectionthe congregation felt its reinforcement and renewal by theaccession of a body of neophytes.

It lay with each church to devise the manner in which thecatechumens, who were now in the west called competentes andin the east photizomenoi (those being enlightened), should passthrough this, the last, stage of their preparation, during theLenten season. Much of their exercise was strictly devotional.Evidence drawn from different churches agrees in showingthat baptizands at this stage underwent exorcism every day, aswas the case at Jerusalem. And we must not, because exorcismis to us unfamiliar, underestimate the importance of the rite inthis connection. The formulae of exorcism uttered in the mostimpressive manner and circumstances must have been apowerful force for decision of the will and feelings against theallurements of evil, as they had presented themselves in thepast life of the convert, and for a sense of liberation into theservice of God. But the most important thing about pre-baptismal exorcism was that, in those days of increasednumbers, it supplied the surviving element of individual andpersonal ministry in the preparation of the candidates. Theoffice of exorcist was one that called for faith and earnestness,but for little other special aptitude than might suffice for com-mitting the formulae of exorcism to memory. It was thereforepossible for each church to possess a corps of exorcists, whocounted as a lower rank in the clerical order, of sufficient sizeto supply individual ministration to the now so numerous candi-dates for baptism. Each such candidate could therefore have anapproved minister in personal charge of that part of his pre-paration that concerned the conversion of his will. We learnfrom Jerome that the place of catechesis, Constantine's basilicaon Golgotha,39 known as the Martyry, was regarded as a veryspecial centre for exorcism, because the devils were in specialterror of that sacred spot.40 But this in turn makes it likely thatthe ministry of exorcism in this church was particularly welldeveloped.

39 T h e la tes t w o r k o n this bu i ld ing is Konstantins Kirche am heiligen Grab inJerusalem, E r ik W i s t r a n d , G o t e b o r g , 1952.

40 Epist. xlvi, to Marcella.3—c-h


We now come to the actual instruction given to the photi-zomenoi at Jerusalem during the forty days of Lent. A study ofthe catechetical lectures of Cyril shows them to form whatwould be described today as a "teaching mission." They werenot aimed at, or indeed open to, the outside public, and theypresuppose a general understanding of the Christian faith andsome familiarity with Scripture. The baptizands, who wereregistered after scrutiny at the beginning of the forty days,formed the expected audience at these lectures, and were givento understand that everything they would hear would beessential to them, so that they must not think them on a levelwith ordinary sermons. Other catechumens, not yet promotedto be photizomenoi were strictly excluded, and nothing said ordone in the preparation of the photizomenoi must be divulged tothem. But a large number of the baptized, some friends andwitnesses of \ht photizomenoi^ and some ascetics and other devoutpersons, were also present. Cyril delivered an introductorylecture, followed by a series of eighteen lectures forming acomplete summary course of instruction in the Christian faith.

We are here faced with a numerical puzzle. It is implied thatlecturing took place on every one of the forty days. And yetthere is nothing about the nineteen lectures that have comedown to us that suggests that they form only part of, or aselection from, a course of forty lectures. This puzzle has vexedthe ingenuity of scholars without evoking any but the mosttentative solutions.41 What now follows is also tentative.

By the end of the course, Cyril found himself with morematter than time, and the eighteenth lecture is easily seen tobe two lectures telescoped into one. But this is the kind ofquandary that is familiar to the young lecturer. Afterwards hetimes more successfully, and gives the number of lectures in theway intended. We have evidence that this same course ofcatechetical lectures was later given with the telescoped lectureson separate days, so that there were twenty lectures in all, theintroduction, and a series of nineteen instructions.42 Now it is41 The most elaborate attempt is that of Dom F. Cabrol in chapter vii of

his Les figlises de Jerusalem. (Paris, 1895). He supposed many lectures tobe lost, put VI-XI in the sixth week (with a lecture on Saturday), xn-xvnin the seventh, and xvin on Palm Sunday. This puts xrv on Wednesday,whereas xiv. 24 shows that it was on Monday, and separates xi and xnby a Sunday. This is enough to destroy the whole construction.

42 The evidence is in the form of a Jerusalem lectionary translated intoArmenian, published as an appendix in F. C. Conybeare, RitualeArmenorum (Oxford, 1905), Appendix II. The manuscript, which is in


certain that a great part of the Jerusalem Christian residentsspoke only Syriste, or Palestinian Aramaic,43 while Cyril'slectures proclaim themselves as able and cultured extemporespeaking in Greek, They could not have been followed by theless Hellenized, even if they had some colloquial Greek. It ispossible, therefore, that Cyril gave a full-dress Greek lectureonly on twenty of the forty days, on the remainder lecturing tothe simpliciores appropriately in the vernacular. But, if so, thetwo courses were of independent construction (as would bereasonable, considering the difference between the two culturesand tongues), and were not given strictly day and day about.Sometimes we find indication of two or even three of our Greeklectures being on consecutive days. This was so with the sixth,seventh, and eighth44 and with the tenth, eleventh and twelfth.The fourteenth was on a Monday.45 If it were the Mondayin Holy Week, the last five lectures were on consecutive

the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, dates from the eighth or ninthcentury. The remoteness of Armenia saved the Armenian church frommany liturgical cross currents, and the lectionary, brought home by someimportant pilgrim from Jerusalem in the fourth century, was not quicklydisplaced and forgotten. This lectionary gives nineteen lections to be usedat the instruction of those to be baptized at Easter. The first eighteencorrespond with those indicated in the manuscript of Cyril's lectures.These manuscripts give only the incipits. The Armenian lectionary givesthe explicits as well, so that we can now tell the whole scripture which theaudience had heard before each of Cyril's lectures. The Armenian hasa nineteenth lection, I Timothy 3:14-16. Now I Timothy 3:15 is cited inSection 25, early in the second part of the lecture, which breaks obviouslybetween Sections 21 and 22. The Armenian lection is appropriate to thissecond part, if it were a lecture in itself. And we may conclude that it wasat some time separate from the first part, as Lecture xix. A BodleianArmenian manuscript dated 1359 is also printed by Conybeare (p. 518),with the rubric, "For the holy quadragesima of those who are about toreceive the seal (i.e., be baptized), nineteen lections." There was nolection for the introductory lecture.

43 F o r th is d ia lec t , see A n t o n B a u m s t a r k , Nichtevangelisehe Syrische. (Mi ins te r ,1921.) F . C. Burkit t shows that , on the evidence of the surviving l i teraturein this dialect, the C h u r c h of Je rusa lem was the effective metropolis ofa n extensive Arama ic Christ ianity in the fourth and fifth centuries.(Journal of Theological Studies, xxiv, 1923. p . 423). Eusebius tells of alector, Procopius, of the Church of Scythopolis, a native of Jerusa lem,w h o in terpre ted Greek into " S y r i a c " (no doub t meaning PalestinianArama ic ) . (Martyrs of Palestine', ii. 1.) T h e non-Hellenic element in theJe rusa l em C h u r c h was therefore not negligible. T h e bilingual section ofthe popula t ion would natura l ly increase with the increase of pi lgrimage,b u t is not likely to have been very large when Cyril became bishop.

44 See vii , i a n d VIIL I . Similarly, for the next sequence, x i . 1 and XII. 4 .*5 xrv. 24.


days. In that case, how were the vernacular instructionsgiven ? This difficulty does not arise if it were the Monday inPassion week, with a fortnight of Lent still to run. We can thenunderstand why, in Lecture xiv, Cyril is not yet painfully awarethat he is running out of time, as he certainly is by LectureXVII.46 And if Lecture xiv was on Monday in Passion week, thelectures can be fairly evenly spaced out among the days, withfour of the eight weeks having two Greek lectures, and theremainder having four, three or one.47 The straits into whichCyril fell at the end of the course show clearly in the last fourlectures. In xv, Cyril, before he closes, assures his audience thatthey will get the creed finished. But he had a great deal to sayabout the Holy Ghost. At the end of xvi he acknowledges that"the time is short." And xvn was not next day, for he beginswith the phrase "In our last lecture," and not "yesterday." Butxvn proved another very long lecture. And now, havingdragged his audience through a positive treatise on the Spirit,he has to crowd the rest of the course into Lecture xvm. As heconcludes this lecture, he shows plainly that his forty days arecome to an end. His audience has next to face the forty-hourfast. So xvm was on Friday in Holy Week (not yet differentiatedas the day of our Lord's passion). xvi and XVII can best be puton Monday and Wednesday in Holy Week. Now xiv and xvmay be put on the Monday and either Wednesday or Thursdayin Passion Week. And so we can work back through the weeks,supposing Cyril to have been determined by circumstanceswhen to lecture in Greek and when to instruct in the vernacular.One thing can be said with certainty. Those who followed theGreek course could only retain what they heard if they also hadsome form of "tutorial" in which to consolidate their learning.They would have been overwhelmed by forty days of suchlecturing, without intervals for assimilation.48

The question of the Monday on which Lecture xiv wasdelivered is of crucial importance, for on it depends the deter-46 XVII. 20. The audience flagged, and was rallied, because "Easter is at

hand."47 Thus; 1st Week, Introduction and 1, 2nd Week, n, in, 3rd Week, iv, v,

4th Week, vi, VII, vm, 5th Week, ix only, 6th Week, x, xi, xn, with xon Monday and xm Friday, 7th Week, xiv, xv, Holy Week, xvi, XVII,XVIII. There is the possibility that tei chthes hemerai means "in our lastlecture" and not strictly "yesterday." In that case, the awkward bunchingof Greek lectures disappears.

48 Cyril's Greek is too spontaneous and fluent for him to have been renderedinto Aramaic on the spot.


mination of the year in which the lectures were given. Inxiv. 24, we are told not only that yesterday was Sunday, butthat the liturgical reading referred to the ascension. If the oldlectionary in use before the development of Holy Week hadsurvived, the solution to our problem would be easy. But it hasnot.49 However, in xiv. io, we learn that it was nearing the timewhen Christ rose from the dead. The vernal equinox was "a fewdays ago." The month Xanthicus had begun. As Xanthicusbegan on 24 March, the last two pieces of information hardlydiffer. With this passage we must take vi. 20, which is adenunciation of Mani, of whom it is said that he "arose lately,under the emperor Probus (for the error is just of seventy years5

standing)."50 Probus reigned from July 276 to September 282.Cyril, lecturing in the spring, thus gives us a choice of six years,from 347 to 352. In that range of years, Easter fell respectivelyon 12 April, 3 April, 23 April, 8 April, 31 March, 19 April. Inview of the information in xiv. 10, we can rule out all but 348and 350. In 348, Monday in Holy Week was 28 March, a weekfrom the equinox and the 5th day of Xanthicus. In 350, theMonday in Passion Week was five days from the equinox, andthe 3rd day of Xanthicus.

To the decision between these alternatives, we must bring insome further considerations. Jerome's Chronicle places the deathof bishop Maximus of Jerusalem in the eleventh year of thethree Augusti, that is, between May 348 and May 349. So, inLent, 348, Maximus would be alive. His relations with Cyril atthat last stage would not prepare us to expect that he woulddepute Cyril to give the catechetical lectures in his place. If hewas too ill to lecture himself, we should expect Heraclius to behis choice. There is, moreover, nothing in our lectures to suggestthat Cyril speaks as a deputy, and not as bearing on his ownshoulders the responsibilities of the bishop's office. Thus thereare three difficulties which meet us in choosing 348, and appa-rently none in choosing 350. The three difficulties are, (i) inrequiring Lecture xiv to be given in Holy Week, it overloadsthe lecturing of that week, (ii) in supposing that Cyril lecturedas a presbyter, and (iii) in placing so unhappy a background to49 F . C. Burki t t , " T h e ear ly Syriac lect ionary sys tem" {Proceedings of the

British Academy, 1923) gives us no he lp . As the C a l e n d a r developed,earlier lectionaries became inappropriate and were displaced, and, withtheir disappearance, the evidence we desire disappeared also.

50 For Mani and Manicheeism, see note 16 to Lecture iv. 4 (p. 101) andnote 23 to Lecture xv. 3 (p. 150). Also note 11 to Section 11 ofNemesius (p. 259) below.


such serene lecturing. The circumstances in which Cyril suc-ceeded Maximus would lead us to expect some delay betweenthe death of Maximus and the consecration of Cyril. We couldhardly expect that he would lecture as bishop in 349. Again, inhis letter to Constantius in May, 351, he speaks of himself asnewly in office, so that this was his first occasion for addressingthe emperor. We should hardly expect such an expression if twoyears had passed since his consecration. Consequently, we mustconclude that our lectures were delivered in Lent, 350, that theywere among the first acts of Cyril as bishop, and that theyembodied instruction for the whole forty days in the form ofwhat was intended as twenty addresses. The tenth-centuryMunich codex which is our oldest manuscript source for theLectures, follows the text of Lecture xvm with this note:

"Many and various have been the lectures delivered fromyear to year, whether it be the lectures before baptism, orthose addressed to the newly-enlightened after their baptism.But only these lectures have been taken down in writing whilethey were being delivered. This was by certain religious, inthe year 352 from the appearing on earth of our Lord andSaviour. In them you will find, in one place and another,instruction from holy scripture on all the necessary dogmas ofthe faith that profit those who come to know them, togetherwith the answers to be made to pagans, Jews and heretics; also,by God's grace, the manifold ethical precepts of Christianliving." si

This note cannot be much older than the manuscript thatcontains it, in view of the attempt to render the date of thelectures in the form of anno Domini.52 If it was not the work ofthe amanuensis of this copy, it was of that of his exemplar. Andthe previous copy must have had a date note in one of the earliersystems. We have seen reason why the lectures could not havebeen given in 352, and we need not be troubled by what islikely to be an arithmetical failure on the part of a ninth-century scribe. But there is no reason for rejecting the accounthere given of the circumstances that gave us these preciouspre-baptismal instructions in writing.53

si Codex cccxciv. See the footnote 20, on pp. 342-3 of Reischl and Rupp'sedition of the works of Cyril. This codex was written in the Orient in thetenth century in a neat uncial hand.

52 This method of dating was introduced by the monk Dionysius Exiguusat the beginning of the sixth century. But its general acceptance was amatter of slow development.

53 The transcribers are described as spoudaioi. Spoudaios, literally "eager,"


We now turn to the headings of the lectures, which alldeclare them to have been delivered extempore (so that what wehave is a transcript, and not the lecturer's manuscript) and toa note at the close of the introductory lecture.54 This bindseveryone who receives or makes a copy to preserve the necessarydiscipline of secrecy. It permits it to be put into the hands ofphotizomenoi before their baptism. The note is presumably thework of the transcribers, and it shows clearly that they had nointention of adding the post-baptismal, or mystagogic,55 lec-tures, which must not, of course, be divulged to photizomenoi.Nevertheless, five mystagogic lectures appear in company withthese Lectures in most, though not all, of our manuscriptcopies. Are they Cyril's? Certainly not those he gave in 350,though they might be those of a later year. But in 1942, W. J.Swaans produced an argument for attributing the fivemystagogic lectures, of the manuscript tradition, not to Cyrilbut to his successor John.56 It is a very cogent argument,and should be set out here in an abbreviated form, especiallyas these mystagogic lectures do not form part of the presentselection.

The points of the argument are, (i) the Munich codexfollows the note on the transcription by the text of the fivemystagogic lectures, expressly attributing them to John,(ii) Other manuscripts have the prebaptismal lectures withoutthe mystagogic lectures following, and yet others attribute thelectures to Cyril and John, (iii) Cyril, in xvm. 33 promises amystagogic lecture for every day in Easter week and there areonly five in this collection (this does not show that the five arenot by Cyril, but only that they do not belong to 350).(iv) These mystagogic lectures show us the Eucharist with an

came to be used as a synonym for "distinguished" and so to be applied,in secular life, to men of standing. Thence it came to be used by Christiansfor those whose zeal exceeded ordinary standards, and thus came tomean ascetics. It was displaced by the word monachos (monk) when theisolation of the ascetics from secular life was established. Its occurrencein this passage indicates that the substance of the note has come downfrom the age of Cyril. The determination of these persons to take downCyril's lectures throws a vivid light on his reputation before his episcopate.

54 See the text, p. 76 below.55 So called because the rites of baptism, chrism or anointing with hallowed

oil, and the Eucharist, are regarded as '^Mysteries," only to be disclosedto those who undergo initiation, and in the course of their initiation.Thus the photizomenoi might not be told beforehand exactly what wasgoing to happen.

5« In Le Museon, Iv. 1-43.


Epiclesis,57 and a recitation of the Lord's Prayer, assign thevirtue of chrism58 to the Third Person of the Trinity, teach aeucharistic presence of Christ by metabolism59 of the elements,and give a eucharistic intercession for emperors (in the plural).60

All these features would be expected in a work of the 390s. Theyare surprising in work of forty years earlier.

There is thus strong reason for supposing that Cyril's lec-tures were transcribed but the once, and only those which hegave before Easter; that by the 390s the absence of mystagogiclectures was felt to be a defect in the book in circulation, andso a copy of five short mystagogic lectures given by John wasadded, but without the attribution to John being alwayscopied; so that eventually these five lectures were wronglyattributed to Cyril. It remains that these lectures give us apattern of post-baptismal, or mystagogic lecturing. The pilgrimAetheria witnessed the catechetical lecturing at Jerusalem, asit was conducted by John, 61 and notes these points: cate-chumens aspiring to baptism handed their names to a presbyterbefore Lent, and were called for scrutiny by the bishop on thefirst day of Lent (Monday after Sexagesima): for the scrutiny,the bishop sat with his clergy in the Martyry, to hear the testi-mony of the sponsors and question the candidates: thoseapproved were enrolled in a register of photizomenoi: on everyfast-day in Lent every photizomenos was exorcized in the earlymorning, and a lecture by John followed: many baptizedpersons heard the lectures: the bishop goes through Scripturefrom Genesis on, expounding first the literal and then thespiritual sense, at the same time teaching the resurrection andall things concerning the faith: in the sixth week the photizomenoireceived the creed: the bishop lectured always in Greek, whilepriest-interpreters rendered what he said, the one into Syriste

57 A prayer to the Holy Spirit to come down and sanctify the elements, sothat they may become sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ.

58 T h e anoint ing wi th holy oil t ha t took place immedia te ly after bapt ism.59 "Me tabo l i sm , " a t e rm which is appl ied nowadays chiefly to the change

of food, in digestion, into living tissues or blood, was appl ied, in the earlysacramental doctrines which regarded the bread and wine as "turninginto" the Body and Blood of Christ (without further attempt to say how),to the change wrought by the sacrament in the elements.

60 In April 350, it must have been known in Jerusalem that there was onlyone emperor. It is questionable when, after that, intercession would bemade for "the emperors," with Cyril able to give the lectures, until thedays of Theodosius the Great.

61 Aetheria does not name the bishop, but there are difficulties in fittingher descriptions to circumstances prior to A.D. 386.


for the simpliciores, the other into Latin for the immigrants:lectures began at six a.m. and lasted for three hours: the lastlecture before baptism was on Friday in Passion Week: after itthe bishop sat on his throne in the apse of the Martyry and thecandidates went to him, one by one, and recited the creed: thebishop then made an allocution to the photizomenoi, in which hetold them that their important illumination was yet to come:from then till Easter eve both photizomenoi and clergy were fullyoccupied in the Holy Week observances: lecturing was resumedon Easter Monday, not in the Martyry but in the chapel overChrist's tomb, known as the Anastasis: the bishop stood in thetomb itself, speaking as in the Person of the risen Christ: theselectures were characterized by a tone of exaltation and excitedstrong emotion.62

We shall easily see that Cyril's lectures fit, on the whole, withthis picture, but that there are some marked differences.

In Cyril's introductory lecture, he seems to be pressing thecandidates to face the issue for themselves, whether or not theygo forward with preparation. John seems to take the matter outof their hands. Cyril treats the photizomenoi as all but Christians.Their postulancy is the sign of their election. The big gap isbetween ordinary catechumens and themselves. Their illumina-tion is taking place all through Lent. For John, they are stillcatechumens till Easter eve. The real enlightenment is thesacramental experience of Easter.63 Cyril imparted the creedin his fifth lecture, with most of Lent to go. Nowhere else do wehear of the creed being taught so long before baptism; and thedisadvantages are obvious.64 John imparted the creed at thebeginning of the sixth week, and received it back from thecandidates at the end of the seventh, more than a week beforebaptism. Cyril's practice emphasizes the intellectual aspect of62 Pilgrimage, 47-49. At the mystagogic lectures " the voices of those ap-

plauding . . . are heard outside the church" for " there is no one unmovedat the things that he hears ."

63 T h e reader of Cyril 's lectures must feel sorry for the simpliciores. I t is notsurprising, therefore, t ha t in course of t ime emphasis was th rown morea n d m o r e u p o n mysterious grace experienced in the sacrament , as beingthe chief a n d general cause of the light of faith in the soul of the neophyte ,and less upon the enlightening of understanding.

64 So much so as to be evidence that Cyril was a beginner. John, on the otherhand, could give only ten lectures to expounding the creed. But our otherevidences on catechesis suggest that the outlines of the creed were allowedto unfold in the stages of instruction leading up to the delivery of thecreed itself, which only took place when baptism was drawing near, andthe learning by heart had to begin.


enlightenment, as John's does not, especially as he prepares theway for the creed, in Lecture iv, by a ten-head summary of hisown of essential Christian doctrine, in which he includesinstruction that is not covered by the creed. Cyril spokeextempore. John had, presumably, a prepared script, and couldpause while the interpreters rendered him to their respectivegroups, and resume at the same point again. Each three-hoursession under John conveyed about half the matter of an averageGreek lecture of Cyril.65

Aetheria has an observation to make on John's lectures whichmight well apply to Cyril's. It concerns the great part played inthem by the exposition of Scripture. Thinking, perhaps, ofLuke 24: 27, "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, heexpounded unto them in all the scriptures the things con-cerning himself," Aetheria says, of John, "Beginning fromGenesis, he goes through all the Scriptures . . . explaining themfirst literally and then unfolding them spiritually." We shallnot understand this as meaning that John gave a course on thebooks of the Bible, but only (what we have in Cyril) a continualproof of the things concerning Christ, first from direct prophecyin the Old Testament, and then by deduction thence of aspiritual meaning. When Aetheria says that the resurrectionand all things concerning the faith are taught at the same time,we shall understand the teaching of the New Testament.Aetheria underlines the fact that both the instruction on thecreed, and the doctrinal and moral instruction before theimparting of the creed, are equally based on continual exegesisof Scripture. And so, she says, these Palestinian Christians getso much more profit from the liturgical lections, all throughtheir lives, than our western folk do, thanks to this thoroughscriptural grounding at their catechesis. In this matter, it isclear that Cyril marked out the way in which John followed.John was also Cyril's faithful disciple in following his heads ofdoctrine. Jerome, in his book Against John of Jerusalem, says thatJohn, to prove his orthodoxy, preached in the presence ofEpiphanius a sermon in which he treated of "all the dogmas ofthe Church," just as he was wont to do in catechesis.66 Jerome

*3 And so more nearly the length of the five mystagogic lectures. Thislecturing was the bishop's special glory. Aetheria says that the audienceapplauds more at the catechetical lectures than they do at the ordinarysermons.

** Section 10. The three sections that follow confirm Aetheria's estimate ofJohn's catechetical lecturing.


wondered that John, who "does not excel in the gifts of speech,55

should be thus able "to gallop through it all without stoppingto take breath." The secret may have been that he had by heartCyril's Decalogue of Dogmas, that is to say, his own "ten heads offaith," set out in Lecture iv before he confined himself, for therest of his course, to the exposition of the Jerusalem creed. Tosum up, the comparison of Aetheria's account of John's cate-chizing with Cyril's lectures gives us a picture of intelligibledevelopment of method and of changing emphases. But it showsclearly that Cyril, in this first course of lectures, delivered, asJerome says, "in his youth,"67 laid the whole foundation for abaptismal catechesis that was to be one of the chief glories ofthe Church of Jerusalem.

THE MARTYRY

The scene of the catechetical lectures was the basilica ofConstantine known as the Martyry.68 We have our first descrip-tion of this building in Eusebius5 Life of Constantine (iii. 33-40).Eusebius must have known very well what he describes. Andyet his description has faced scholars with a great deal of diffi-culty. This may be lessened somewhat when we consider thatEusebius was not writing as an architect but as a panegyristextolling Constantine. He therefore chooses for mention thosefeatures of the building that were unusual or, of themselves,impressive. The ordinary basilican features of the building hepasses over without description.69 It may be guessed thatEusebius had a great share in inspiring Constantine with theplan of erecting these sacred buildings in Jerusalem. But it ishis clear intention, in the Life, to extol the initiative of Constan-tine himself. So, in iii. 29, he declares that the emperor had67 Famous men, No. 112.68 Marturion, rendered into English as Martyry, means a proof or testimony.

Cyril regards the name as inspired (see xiv. 6) since Zephaniah (3 :8in the Septuagint) says, "Therefore await me, saith the Lord, on theday of my resurrection at the Mar tyry" . Valesius, commenting on Lifeof Constantine, iv. 45, suggests that this exegesis was produced a t thededication of the Martyry, in 335. Whereas the names Mar tyry andAnastasis are commonly used, as in these pages, to denominate two dis-tinct buildings, the first a basilica and the second a rotunda, both names,in Cyril 's days, were alike applicable to the whole complex of buildingsshown in the ground plan A. (See page 44.)

69 He planned to append to the Life the text of a full description which hehad sent to Constantine in 335. This appendix was never added. (See theend of iii. 40.)

C O N J E C T U R A L P L A N O F T H E B U I L D I N G S O N G O L G O T H A

W-C Q I O N H A . D E

O O O O O

O O O O O O OU P P E R P O R T I C O

THEGARDEN COURT

if o,rs

//BISHOP'S

bUTHRONE\v 0 • •

INT

\ v TOfcPSE

o0O

O ° OHOLY 0

• oTABLE Oo o o

o

O O O O O O O O O

•THE HEMISPHERE*

PLACE OFLECTURES ?

THE HEMISPHERE

o o o o o o o o o

0 O O OCOLONNADE

CRUCISO O O O O

COLONNADE

THE MARTYRY

UPPER P O R T I C OO O O O O O O O O O]

COLONNADEO O O O O O O

OOO

FORECOURT

nMARKETSTREET

o o o o o o oCOLONNADE

GROUND PLAN A


conceived a plan for erecting a church near the Saviour's tomb,some time before it became practicable for him to carry itinto effect. Constantine, he says, "had foreseen, as if by the aidof a superior intelligence, that which should afterwards come topass." He means the rediscovery of the Holy Sepulchre, whichhe is going presently to describe.70 This is as much as to say thatConstantine had plans for the glorification of Jerusalem sometime before he either became master of Palestine or wasacquainted with Eusebius. The point is very important for ourestimate of Constantine.71 For it shows the kind of under-70 H e asserts that the pagans deliberately hid the tomb beneath a mound of

earth, upon which they then erected a shrine of Venus (iii. 26). Je romeattributes this, and other steps to bar Christians from the holy sites, toHadr ian , in A.D. 135 (Epist. lviii. 3) . But the Christians presumablyremembered. Constantine appears to say, in a letter to bishop Macariusof Jerusalem {Life, iii. 30-32), that they had applied to Licinius in vainto have the mound removed from the holy Sepulchre. Eusebius says(iii. 28) that when the mound was demolished at ConstantineJs command,the results "exceeded all expectation. T h e venerable and hallowedmonument of our Saviour's resurrection was discovered." Constantinerefers to the discovery of the tomb, in his letter to Macarius, as "thismiracle ." For Eusebius, the resurrection of the tomb is a symbol of theresurrection of Christ. I n his Theophany, which survives in Syriac, hedilates on the lone rock with but one tomb as fitting the unique burial(iii. 61 . p . 199 in the edition of S. Lee).

Cyril (xiv. 9) shows, what Eusebius does not, that Constantine orderedthe cutting away of the face of the rock, so as to expose the chamber andits loculus to view. H e also says (xin. 39 and xiv. 22) what is confirmed byJe rome (Epist. cviii. 9), that the round stone to block the door was alsofound. When we remember how J o h n 2 0 : 5 - 9 implies that the doorto the tomb was so low, and the interior so dark, tha t the loculus couldnot be distinctly seen, the motive for the drastic step of cutting back therock is intelligible.

71 T h e greater par t of the evidence that the Holy Land played an essentialpa r t in the religious policy of Constantine is to be sought in the Life ofConstantine at tr ibuted to Eusebius. T h e authenticity of this work haslatterly been called in question by H . Gregoire. But even he seems notto be prepared to deny it any Eusebian basis. Certainly the Life givesrise to problems that are not yet all solved. But recent study has tendedto diminish suspicions of fiction attaching to the work, and this appliesparticularly to the passages in which it represents Constantine as havinga lively interest in the Holy Land. If the Life is, in the main, the authenticwork of Eusebius, it occupied the last days of his life, and it is probabletha t his autograph was still not ready for copying when he died. T h eautograph may have lain unnoticed in the church library of Caesareauntil the days of Euzoius, whom Je rome credits with concern for itstreasures. Gelasius, his Nicene successor, is, however, more likely thanEuzoius to have prepared the Life for circulation, at a time when the easthad , once more, in Theodosius the Great , a ruler ready to walk in thesteps of Constantine.


standing of Christianity in which he excelled. The mainevidence for his interest in the Holy Land is contained in theLife, Book iii, chapters 25-53, which give an account of theworks carried out in Palestine on Constantine's orders. Butother passages in the Life are of importance. Thus, in i. 12,Constantine is compared with Moses, as being a delivererbrought up in the palace of a tyrant, and this passage leads theway to i. 19, where the author describes Constantine as he firstsaw him, a magnificent young soldier in the train of Diocletian,when the emperor passed southwards through Palestine in 296on his way to suppress the rising of Achilleus in Egypt. We knowalike from Eusebius and Lactantius that at this time there weremany Christians about the emperor's person. Constantine mayhave learned then what the topographical associations ofPalestine meant for Christians, and this may have constitutedone of his first impressions concerning the Christian religion.In ii. 64-72, Constantine's letter pleading with Alexander andArius to resolve their dispute, he clearly suggests a connectionbetween the pacification of the Church and the possibility ofhis coming in person to the Holy Land. The description of hisdeath-bed baptism at Nicomedia (iv. 62) represents him astelling those present "I had thought to do this in the waters ofthe river Jordan." We are plainly meant to understand thatchurch disunity was at least one reason why that hope was dis-appointed. There can be no doubt of Constantine's constantpreoccupation with the union of Christendom. So, when weread in iii. 25 that he was inspired of Christ to make the placeof his resurrection "an object of attraction and veneration toall," we may suppose him to have fostered Christian pilgrimageas something that should strengthen church unity. When weremember how the travels of an Irenaeus or Abercius createdrecognition of the world-wide unity of churches, and howConstantine himself may have been brought by his travels toappreciate the significance of the Church, it is reasonable tocredit him with the thought that the Holy Land might be aninfluence for unity through the travels of pilgrims. We mayjudge further that he looked to the Holy Land as a place wheregreat gestures were to be made. In 335, as the Life (iv. 42-6)tells us, he urged the bishops assembled at Tyre to restore unityto the Church, and followed this up with an urgent call to themto repair to Jerusalem where magnificent provision had beenmade for the dedication of his new church on Golgotha, theMartyry. At this dedication the bishops (as we learn from

GENERAL IxNTTRODUCTION 47

Athanasius, Against the Avians, 84) asserted the emperor'sassurance that "the Arians"72 were returned to catholicobedience, and reconciled them. Constantine had, in short, aconsidered Holy Land policy.

That he should have conceived the idea of creating a newfocus of unity for the Church throughout the empire, in theHoly Land, and particularly in the holy city of Jerusalem, is astriking instance of his artistic sense of human strategy. If wewill believe Eusebius, it was his part to be only the admiringagent for fulfilling what the genius of Constantine had initiated.But it must have been his joy to superintend the rediscovery ofthe tomb in the rock, which gave the point of departure for therealization of the emperor's scheme. Jerome's Chronicle tells us,under A.D. 326, that a Constantinopolitan presbyter Eustathiusearned acknowledgment by the industry with which he builtthe Martyry at Jerusalem. But as Bidez, in his Berlin editionof the Church History of Philostorgius (p. 208), reconstructs thatwriter's text referring to the Martyry, Eustathius earnedacknowledgment by his "apostolic life" and "supreme virtue,"while he had as his colleague Zenobius the "archdeacon" (atransparent miscopy for "architect"). For practical purposes,therefore, the erection of the Martyry was an outlying part ofthe huge building-scheme that created Constantinople, and theemperor joined to the architect whom he sent to Jerusalem anoutstanding presbyter, from among his own personal clergy,to see that everything went forward as well as he couldwish.73

The site consisted of the garden containing the rock of thesepulchre, and the low ridge of rock, to the east of the garden,which had been identified as Golgotha. This ridge must havebeen clearly defined, and ran east and west, its axial line, whenproduced, passing close to the sepulchre itself. The garden wasenclosed, on the sides away from Golgotha, within a wall,having a colonnade on the inside. In 350 the rock of thesepulchre probably still stood, in its enclosure, under the opensky. Later a rotunda was erected with the sepulchre at its?2 Tous peri Areion, "Arius and company," as referred to in the emperor's

letter. Between the letter and its acceptance at Jerusalem Arius himselfhad died.

73 This again is an imaginative step on Constantine's part. It meant thatthe clergy and ascetics of Jerusalem had to deal with an imperial agentwho had their enthusiastic confidence, and that the architect would adapthis plans both to the actual site, and to the uses to which the buildingswere likely to be put.


centre.74 This was the building known as the Anastasis, or chapelof the resurrection, and was entered by several doors. Its floor-space took up the western half of the garden, while the easternhalf formed an open court, between it and Golgotha. Theridge of rock formed the site of the Martyry, of which thewestern apse towered above the garden court, while its easternfacade, with its great entrance-doors, fronted on another colon-naded courtyard, from which a gateway gave access from whatAetheria calls the pars quintana or market street.75 From thisstreet the visitor ascended a flight of steps (see elevation B)from which he could either pass through an entrance into thebasilica, or along a portico, built against the flank of the church,which led, at the further end, down steps, into the garden court,and so to the Anastasis. The Martyry thus was the largest unitin a complex of building so designed as to give the authoritiesthe greatest control over access, and that nevertheless, when itwas so desired, would admit large crowds of worshippers witha minimum of delay.

Eusebius describes the basilica as a very lofty and wide nave,covered with a lead roof under which a panelled wood ceilingglowed with gold ornament. He does not say, but we can assumethat it had this roof borne up upon long lines of pillars, in theway usual in such basilican halls. He continues, "along bothflanking-walls upper and lower porticos were built, exactlyalike on the two sides, and both running the whole length ofthe building. These, too, were ceiled with panels adorned withgold. The lower porticos in front of the building leaned uponenormous pillars, while the upper, lying in from these frontcolonnades, were borne up by masonry that, towards the out-side, was intricately ornamented."76 The floor of the basilicawas paved, he says further, with marble. And so smooth was thebuilding of the walls, that even their external surface almostseemed like marble. We note the emphasis on the externalglories of the building. To see what it all means, we may dobest to think first of the preparation of the site. The rock ridgemust first have been dressed to take the building, the side slopesbeing cut back to give a vertical wall of rock forming the back

74 Wistrand, op, cit., argues this probability, and places the building of therotunda about the end of Cyril's life.

75 Pilgrimage, xl i i i . 7.76 Life, iii. 37. Every writer on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre hitherto

has assumed that Eusebius is describing pillared aisles inside the basilica.But it is impossible to impose such a sense upon his words.

CONJECTURAL SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE GOLGOTHA SITEW I T H THE SOUTH ENCLOSING WALL AND THE BAPTISTRY TAKEN AWAY

THE ANASTASIS

STRtET

miosim hn n

1in

APSE

THE GARDEN COURT

h

1rHE MARTYRY

D D D • D C

111w1 1 1 411 IU

3 [

ft3 a

KBH

n

16IVIN6 ACCtSS TO T H I6AHBIN COUM f'"

^ ~ i _ . FORECOURT J

STMIT

ENCLOl

MONTICULUSCHUCIS 'UNOER.GROUMD* PORCH

ELEVATION B


of a lower portico.77 The roof of this portico would be of heavymasonry continuing the level of the floor of the church, andresting on a row of very stout pillars. Upon this projecting floor,upheld by the lower portico, was erected the lighter upperportico, whose more graceful and decorated columns rose tomeet the eaves of the lead roof of the church. It was these upperporticos that were entered from the top of the eastern stairs ofthe Martyry, and so gave access, from the forecourt, outsidethe basilica, to the garden court and Anastasis.78 The lowerporticos were a purely external feature of the buildings, andemphasized its lavish magnificence in the eyes of the outsideworld. There was, according to Eusebius, one outstandingglory of the interior of the Martyry. "Over against the entrance-doors, the crowning feature of all was the hemisphere, whichrose to the very summit of the church. This was ringed bytwelve columns, whose capitals were embellished with silverbowls of great size." No small help to solving the riddle of thisdescription has been given by the recent publication of a surveyof the ancient basilican churches of Lepcis, Sabratha and Oea,on the Tripolitanian coast, dating from the neighbourhood of400 A.D., and not seriously rearranged in their sixth centuryByzantine restoration.79 Before this restoration, each churchhad a wooden altar-table in the middle of the nave, under abaldachin supported on four columns, and surrounded by alow screen on all four sides. These churches, like the Martyry,had a western apse, and an eastern facade pierced by entrydoors. There were side aisles cut off by rows of pillars andrunning the whole length of the basilican hall,80 The westernapse held the bishop's throne and presbyteral bench, on aplatform some five feet above the floor of the nave. Converselywe may attribute these features to the Martyry, and see, in the

77 We have something analogous in the siting of Durham Cathedral, andespecially of its Galilee. At Golgotha, the uneven surface of the rockplatform must first have been levelled, and the building and the edges ofthe rock adjusted each to other. The adjective which Eusebius applies tothe lower porticos is "underground," which is justified according to theaccompanying reconstruction, elevation B.

78 See Pilgrimage, xxiv. 8, where a crowd assembles at cockcrow in thegarden-court before the doors of the Martyry or Anastasis have yet beenopened.

79 See "The Christian Antiquities of Tripolitania," J .B. Ward Perkins andR. G. Goodchild, in Archaeologia, xcv. 1-84.

so At the end of each aisle was a chamber, or secretarium, flanking the apseon either side. In one were kept and prepared the sacred vessels, and inthe other the scriptures and liturgical books.


"hemisphere" upborne by a circle of twelve columns nearly totouch the ceiling of the church, a peculiarly magnificentbaldachino, to dignify the Holy Table. When lecturing, Cyrilprobably sat> facing east, before the Holy Table, with hisaudience between him and the entrance doors, and probablyJohn likewise; but when John heard the candidates recite thecreed, they went (Aetheria says, one by one) up the steps intothe apse.81 For exorcism, the candidates may have gone in turnalong the aisles to the sacristries or secretaria that flanked theapse. After exorcism they would return, to sit on the marblefloor east of the Holy Table until the bishop came from theAnastasis, to begin his lecture.

Neither Eusebius nor Cyril give us any hint of somethingthat plays so great a part in the journal of Aetheria and theaccounts of later pilgrims. This is the monticulus Calvariaeoutside the Martyry in the south-east corner of the garden-court.82 It was apparently a little mound of rock with a crevicein it. On this mound, approached by steps, there was built ashrine where ostensions of the wood of the True Cross tookplace. Such an "invention" might have happened and becomeaccepted during CyriFs exile. It entailed, however, far-reachingconsequences, for it invested the group of sacred sites with abi-focal character, the cave of Resurrection answering to themound of Passion, two clearly defined objects of cult observance.This is the probable reason why a mere paraskeue or eve of theeve of Easter presently turned, at Jerusalem, into Good Friday,and introduced an antithesis, previously unknown but soon tobe felt throughout the Christian world, between Passiontide andEastertide.

si Pilgrimage, xlvi. 5. Aetheria's words retro in absida post altarium raise thequestion whether in her time the Holy Table had been removed fromunder the "hemisphere" to stand before the bishop's throne. But theycertainly do not put it beyond doubt.

82 Aetheria speaks of the space between the Anastasis and the monticulus asante crucem, "in front of the cross," and the Martyry, and everything eastof the monticulus, as post crucem. This suggests that the shrine of Calvarywas open to the west, facing the Anastasis. Peter the Deacon calls it amons and speaks, like Aetheria, of the lamps in the shrine. By the time ofAdamnus, in the late seventh century, a nave had been built out eastwardsfrom the rotunda of the Anastasis, to contain the asserted place of thecrucifixion in one building with the Holy Sepulchre, leaving the basilicaof the Martyry outside the essential sanctuary. The development can befollowed in P. Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana (1898), in the "Vienna corpus."Wistrand, op. cit., has a suggestion as to the circumstances which led tothe recognition of the monticulus crucis.


By singular good fortune we have an actual picture of thegroup of buildings on Golgotha by an artist of the sixth century.This picture forms part of a mosaic floor, in a church of thatage, at Madaba in the Moabite country east of the Dead Sea.83

The whole floor presents a map of the Holy Land, conceived,perhaps, as a New Testament Pisgah-view, for the place isnear Mount Nebo. In the middle of the map is pictured con-temporary Jerusalem. We see the colonnaded market street(line-drawing C) and the forecourt of the Martyry, with itsflight of steps ascending to the east facade pierced by threedoors. We look along the ridge of the Martyry roof to see thegolden dome of the Anastasis, with, just beyond it, the city wall.Eusebius tells us that the wall of the city was carried out, so asto enclose this Christian sacred area, and to create a freshquarter of the city, known as New Jerusalem.84 Aetheria'sreference to the ecstatic cries of the neophytes during themystagogic lectures in the Anastasis probably means that thesound could be heard in the street outside the sacred enclosure.85

The Madaba picture shows us something that our literarysources do not describe, though it is the subject of a singleallusion,86 namely the baptistry. This is shown as lying to the

83 See F . Gabrol a n d H . Lec lercq , Dictionnaire d'archaeologie et de liturgiechrStienne, s.v. Madaba. The buildings so depicted were obliterated in1009 by Caliph Hakem, and their traces covered up by the new work ofConstantine Monomachus in 1048.

84 Life of Constantine, iii. 3 3 . I n 326, t he J e r u s a l e m leaders supposed t h e sitewhich they identified as Golgotha and the garden of the tomb to be outsidethe old city wall. They could then, presumably, trace the line of that wall.Modern archaeologists have, so far, been unable to trace it, though itsdiscovery would affect vitally the question of the authenticity of theHoly Sepulchre.

85 There was therefore some space between the wall of the sacred enclosureand the city wall of New Jerusalem, though this, with other details,cannot be seen from the Madaba picture. In xiv. 9 Cyril speaks of thetomb as near the city wall.

86 This is in the first of the pilgrim records edited by Geyer. The pilgrimwas an unnamed man, apparently a high military officer, who made hispilgrimage from Burgundy in 333. Compared with Aetheria, he is verylaconic, and does not seem to have had such good guides as were, nodoubt, available later. He speaks of the monticulus Golgotha, not meaningthe monticulus Calvariae of later date, but the ridge of rock forming thesite of the Martyry. He speaks of the church of marvellous beauty therebuilt by Constantine. It must have been nearing completion, at the time,but was not to be dedicated for another two years. He speaks of it asa stone's throw from the cripta where the Lord was buried and rose again,but says nothing of this cripta being surmounted by any rotunda. Eusebiussays nothing of the rotunda either, but merely that Constantine enriched

THE BUILDINGS ON THE GOLGOTHA SITE AS SEEN BY THEARTIST OF THE MADABA MOSAIC

THE DOOR LEADING DOWNTO THE BAPTISMAL POOL

RED ROOF OF BAPTISTRY-

THE BAPTISMAL POOL(UNDER THE ROOF)

RED ROOF OF THE

H H H H H H H H H ST H E M A R K E T

THE ANASTASIS(GOLDEN DOME)

THE MARTYRY(RED ROOF)

F A C A D E , WITH THREE DOORS

STREET COLONNADE

HHHHHHHHHHS T R E E T

STEPS UP TO THELEVEL OF THE MARTYR.Y

LINE-DRAWING G


south-west of the garden-court. The mosaic-artist of Madabaimagines its roof removed, so that we see the pool. He indicatesa doorway just outside the Anastasis through which, we maysuppose, folk descended to the water by a flight of steps. Allthrough the night before Easter dawned, these sacred buildingswere ablaze with light. Glass candelabra and hanging lamps ofburnished silver well-trimmed and filled with olive oil, turnednight into day for those who passed those hours in guiding orbeing guided through the moving solemnities of baptism.87 It isno wonder that it was a night never to be forgotten by even thestolidest of those whom the Church of Jerusalem received tobaptism. But, then, even the daytime setting of their prepara-tion for baptism was impressive, in having the richness andsolemn grandeur that is associated for us with the word"cathedral."

JERUSALEM TRADITION

In 350, the buildings that have been described were aggres-sively new, and, as has been seen, the catechetical lecturesdelivered in that Lent seemed to some of the religious whoheard them to set an excitingly new standard. But it wouldbe a mistake to suppose this fourth-century church life atJerusalem to be a mushroom growth. There was a Jerusalemtradition that was already venerable, though we can only forman impression of its true significance when we have consideredthe history of the transmission of Christianity at Jerusalem downto this time. In short, we must answer the question, What hadbeen the history of the Church of Jerusalem ? The primitiveChurch in Jerusalem was unique in that it was not apostolic asother churches were. According to Acts, the Church of Jeru-salem inclusive of the apostles was created by a divine act of the

the sepulchre with decorations. We may conclude that the rotunda wasbuilt between the dedication of the Martyry in 335 and Cyril's death in386. What the pilgrim of 333 saw, besides the Martyry and the cripta,were water-pits supplying a "bath where infants are washed," presumablya baptistry. (Geyer, op. cit., p. 23.)

87 Section 15 of Cyril's introductory lecture describes Easter eve as "thatnight when darkness is turned into day." Eusebius, Church History, vi. 9,tells how, in the early third-century days of Narcissus as bishop of Jeru-salem, the lamp-oil failed for the all-night vigil of Easter. "Deepdespondency seized the whole multitude." Narcissus commanded thelamps to be filled with water which was at once, by a miracle, turnedinto oil. Eusebius was shown a relic of this miraculous oil. Thus, in Aelia,the tradition of the Paschal illumination went back at least a centurybefore Eusebius visited the city.


Holy Spirit. This act at the same time empowered the apostlesfor their mission to the world. The mother-Church of Jerusalemnow took a shape of its own, the shape of a Davidic kingdom ofIsrael redeemed. Jesus, at once the new Moses and the Son ofDavid* having ascended into the heavens, James, his brotherafter the flesh, pontificated in the City of David as a new Aaron,offering spiritual sacrifices revealed by Jesus, the high-priestafter the order of Melchizedec.88 Acts show James surroundedby a sanhedrin of Jewish presbyters who believed. And thePauline epistles support Acts in representing James and themother-Church of Jerusalem as receiving fullest recognitionfrom all the apostles, and from the churches of their founding.At its source, therefore, the tradition of Jerusalem was of therichest and most significant. But in A.D. 62 James was martyred.Hegesippus, whose account is preserved in Eusebius,89 tells usthat Symeon, also a kinsman of the Saviour, was made successorto James, with the concurrence of the representatives of theapostolate and the apostolic churches. Symeon presently ledforth his flock to voluntary exile at Pella.90 But Epiphanius, whoalso has told us this in his Panarion, Heresy 29, tells us, in hisWeights and measures, ch. 15, that after the sack of Jerusalem bythe Romans in A.D. 70, Symeon and the Pella refugees returnedto the ruins of the city. Presumably Epiphanius drew on Hege-sippus for all this information. And there is no reason to regardthe return to Jerusalem as impossible. Of our informants on thishistory, Josephus exaggerates the ruin of Jerusalem to flatterthe Romans, and the Christian writers emphasize it to throwinto brighter relief the prophetic words of Christ. But Josephustells us91 that Titus marvelled to find that he had captured thecity with the three towers of Herod's palace, and a large pieceof the adjoining western wall, undestroyed. These, then, wereincorporated into a castrum occupying the western hill ofJerusalem, in which the tenth legion was thereafter continu-ously in garrison for sixty years. No such permanent castrum butmust have its vicus or civilian settlement, outside its fortifica-tions, inhabited by sutlers and a mixed population ministeringto the needs of the troops. As the castrum at Jerusalem wasfinished, so civilians would find a shelter in the less ruined

88 The position and authority of James has been discussed by Dr. ArnoldEhrhardt in the first chapter of his Apostolic Succession (Lutterworth Press,London, 1953).

w Church History, iii. 10.11. *o Ibid, iii. 5.3.9i Jewish War, Bk. vii, opening.


houses, to be a vicus to the tenth legion. In the eyes of thelegionaries, the Pella refugees would be "white" Jews. Andwhereas Adolph von Schlatter has shown that rabbinicopinion for some time held the ruins of Jerusalem to be defiling,on account of dead men's bones,92 the Christian leaders maywell have thought differently, although regardful of the law.It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Judaeo-Christiansof Pella returned and found shelter in the south-west corner ofthe city. For one thing, this may have been the least ruinouspart of the city. The Bordeaux pilgrim of 333 was shown, there,the house of Caiaphas, and the remains of seven synagogues, ofwhich one only stood.93 Epiphanius also knew about the syna-gogues.94 The idea evidently lingered on that things hadsurvived in that quarter of the town, including the house of theLast Supper. And fourth-century Christians called the quarter,though furthest from the temple, "Zion";95 something whichmight have seemed appropriate if and when it was the onlypart of the former city that possessed inhabitants, but hardlyotherwise. Finally, it was the most natural vicus for the adjoininglegionary camp. It was in the church in "Zion" that Eusebiussaw the reputed throne of James, to which marks of reverencewere accorded.96 There is ground enough, therefore, to believein the return of the Pella Christians to Jerusalem, and inSymeon's continuance there, as high-priest of redeemed Israel,until his martyrdom, about A.D. 105. When this happened,Hegesippus says, there was no kinsman of the Lord to succeedhim, and his flock received a bishop by election. And from thismoment, he continues, the Judaeo-Christian Church began tobe broken up into parties.97 That group to which Hegesippusbelonged made claim to be in full accord with the apostolicchurches elsewhere, as James and Symeon had been with theirfounders. And he attributes the death of Symeon to thetreachery of the "sects." Meanwhile, as Schlatter shows from92 Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians (Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher

Theologie), Gutersloh, 1897, P- 73* This monograph, in which extensiveuse is made of evidence gathered from rabbinic sources, is of great im-portance for a true estimate of the history of Jerusalem after A.D. 70.

93 P . G e y e r , op. ciU, p . 2 5 .94 Weights and Measures, c. 14.95 The authentic Zion, "the city of David," was certainly the eastern ridge

on which the temple stood.96 Church History9 vii . 19. U n t i l t he M a r t y r y was bui l t , t he " c a t h e d r a l " o r

mothe r church of Aelia was the so-called U p p e r C h u r c h of Zion, thereputed successor to the house of the Last Supper .

97 Church History, iii. 35 a n d iv. 22 .4 -6 . T h e d a t e is fixed by iii. 32 .3 .


rabbinic sources, the avoidance of Jerusalem by non-ChristianJews came to an end. The temple ruins became an object ofmournful pilgrimage, and the previously deserted areas of theold city began quietly to fill again with Jews, some of Phariseeleanings and some Sadducee, but not Christian. An interestingepisode is the purchase by a rabbi of the synagogue-building ofthat very synagogue of the Alexandrines in which Stephen oncedisputed, as a dwelling house.98 Meanwhile, according toEusebius {Demonstration of the Gospel, 3. 5) the Judaeo-Christiancongregation was very large. At the end of Trajan's reign,Jewry was once more in conflict with the Empire, in Alexandria,Euphratensia and Crete. Palestinian Jews went to the help oftheir comrades at Alexandria, and brought chastisement totheir own land. But Schlatter finds no sign that the Jewishpopulation of the holy city was involved. Presumably it wasreckoned as "well-affected." So we come to the reign ofHadrian and to the year 130. There was a very well-informedauthority for the history of events in Palestine at this time, in theHistory of the Romans by Dio Cassius, writing only a centurylater than the events. This part of his work only survives as usedin two works of the eleventh century, the Chronicle of JohnZonaras, and the Epitome of Xiphilinus. And they say thatHadrian, in 130, gave orders to build a temple of Zeus on theJewish temple site, as if Jerusalem was a Greek city." Thisraises very great difficulties. Hadrian certainly gave such andmore extensive orders five years later when a general Jewishrevolt had been finally crushed. Schlatter argues1 that Diowas misunderstood by the eleventh-century writers and thatHadrian ordered building at Jerusalem in 130, but of a differentsort from that ordered in 135. Schlatter appeals to the Epistle ofBarnabas, ch. 16, in confirmation of his conjecture that in 130Hadrian ordered such rebuilding on the temple area as wouldenable the restoration of the temple rites of Israel. Such actionon Hadrian's part is not incredible. Nor is it unlikely that hethought thereby to win the favour of the Jews, and their offeringof sacrifices on his behalf. But if so, he grossly misunderstoodthe mentality of the Jews as represented in the rabbinic authorsof the time. The Jews thanked Hadrian for nothing. It was their

98 Schla t ter , op. ciL, p . 8 1 .99 History of the Romans, lxix. 12. After t he r ep l ann ing as a R o m a n colony,

the temple site was known as the Quadra, and no doubt regarded as asacred area for the erection of shrines.

1 Schlatter, op. cit, passim, for the outlines that follow.


God who again accepted them, whom they thanked. And so,when Hadrian withdrew from the Orient in 132, a certainSimeon, recognized by Rabbi Akiba and others as Messiah,under the title of Barcochab, "Son of a star," in reference toNumbers 24:17 ("a star shall come out of Israel"), led the peoplein full insurrection. The legionaries at Jerusalem must havebeen taken entirely by surprise, and were driven from theircastrum> to suffer heavy losses in the ensuing campaign. Simeonallied himself with Eleazar ben Charsom as high-priest, and thetwo reigned in Jerusalem for two years. What happened to theChristians of the Holy City can only be guessed. Justin (/Apology, 31) says that Barcochab was their bitter persecutor.Barcochab's Jerusalem can have been no place for Christians,whether circumcised or uncircumcised. But the suddennesswith which the Romans were overthrown there gave the churchno opportunity of orderly withdrawal, as in the days of Pella.Individuals can only have saved their lives by flight to theprotection of the Roman forces, and, in the first instance to thatof the legionaries to whom they were known.

Hadrian now called Julius Severus from Britain to takecommand of the recovery of Palestine. In the hot summer of134, Jerusalem was beleaguered, and the failure of water causedSimeon to abandon the city, breaking through the Roman linesto reach the fortress of Bittir, seven miles to the south-west,where the insurgents made their final stand, until they wereovercome in 135. There followed the severest repressive meas-ures. Those involved in the guilt of insurrection were sold intoslavery. All practice of Jewish religion was proscribed. Wecannot be surprised if the Christian holy places were indis-criminately involved in this proscription. But, for the adherentsof Judaism, the decrees of Hadrian, which remained un-alleviated until A.D. 145, brought one of the bitterest persecutionsin Jewish history. The Judaean highlands were confiscated andused in the refoundation of the "liberated" Jerusalem as aRoman colony, under the name of Aelia Capitolina. The newcitizenship must have consisted, in the first place, of veteransand others to whom was accorded former Jewish land inreward for services rendered in the war. But the public buildingswhich the anonymous author embodied in the Paschal Chronicle1

at this point records, as having been erected, on Hadrian'sorders, for the colony, show that the new inhabitants were nomere handful. Moreover, the colony was to replace the tenth2 Dindorf's edition, I. p . 474. (Corpus Scripiorum Historian Byzantinae, 1832.)


legion in securing the Roman peace, and must therefore havebeen planned as a concentration of loyalists. Under thesecircumstances it is unlikely that none of the Christian loyalistsdriven out by Barcochab were given a place in the new colony.No circumcised Christian could inhabit Aelia. But the Judaeo-Christianity represented by Hegesippus was in full communionwith Gentile churches, and there is no ground for concludingthat all the Christians of Jerusalem before 132 were circumcised.We must therefore allow for the possibility that the Christiancongregation that reassembled in Aelia, in spite of its uncir-cumcision, was dominated by the tradition that had prevailedunder bishops of the circumcision down to 132. There is noground for supposing that the Church of Aelia in 135 was amere chance collection of Levantine Greeks, looking up to theChurch of Caesarea rather than back to the historic Churchof Zion. This point is of the greatest importance in estimatingthe authenticity of the holy sites of Christian Jerusalem, ex-cellently defended by J. Jeremias, in "Wo lag Golgotha unddas Heilige Grab" (Angellus I. 141-173, Leipzig, 1925).3 But italso has an important bearing on our estimate of the doctrinaland liturgical tradition in the Church of Aelia-Jerusalem in thedays of Cyril.

Before the second century was out, pilgrimage to Jerusalemrecommenced. But this time it was Gentile Christian pilgrimage.Melito of Sardis, in a passage cited in Eusebius, Church History;iv.26.13, says that he had "gone up to the east and come to theplace where the things (of the old covenant) were proclaimedand done," and in his more recently discovered Paschal homily4

he makes it clear that, for him, this place meant Jerusalem.It was thus to the Gentile Church of Aelia that an Asian bishopwent to be assured what were the authentic scriptures of theOld Testament. And Melito died shortly before 190. Then, inBook vi of his Church History (chapters 8-14), Eusebius gives usa clear picture of the way in which, at the opening of the thirdcentury, the thoughts of individual Christians were turning

3 Angellus (the title was printed in Greek capitals) was a short-lived period-ical founded by J. Leipoldt in 1925, with the alternative title ArchivfurNeutestamentliche £eitgeschichte u, Kulturkunde. Its first volume contained thisimportant article of Jeremias.

4 Edition by Campbell Bonner, in Studies and Documents, xii (1940), p. 168(text and note, p. 89). "For the Law became Word, and the old becamenew, going forth together from Sion and Jerusalem." The allusion is toIsa. 2:3, and the prophecy explains Melito's confidence in the Churchof Aelia, which called itself Zion.


towards the Holy Land and City as the goal of pilgrimage. In211, he tells us, Alexander, who had been bishop of an unnamedchurch in Cappadocia and a confessor in the persecution underSeptimius Severus, was released from his long imprisonment.His flock had apparently in the meantime been given anotherpastor, and he had vowed that if he were set free he would visitthe scene of the sufferings of Christ. When he reached Aelia,there seem already to have been there persons whom we shouldcall "religious,"5 and some of these claimed to have had itrevealed to them that Alexander should stay and ministeramong them. Narcissus, himself a "religious," to judge by thestories that Eusebius collected about him, was now advancedin years, and the bishops of Palestine agreed to Alexanderassisting Narcissus, with right of succession. Alexander was aman of learning and had been a disciple of Pantaenus atAlexandria, perhaps in company with Clement.6 Perhaps, also,for this reason he became friendly with Origen, and boreresponsibility for provoking Origen's breach with his bishopDemetrius. When Origen had been ordained presbyter atCaesarea, Alexander and he became lifelong friends, and bothfell victims in the Decian persecution.7 During his residence atCaesarea, Origen visited various places in the Holy Land, andhis great influence must have done much to spread the ideaof devotional pilgrimage. Through Pamphilus, this interestpassed to Eusebius, who was not only familiar with Jerusalem,where he used the library collected by Alexander, but showswide acquaintance with the topography of the Old and NewTestaments.8 At the same time Eusebius bears witness to the

5 Tois malista auton spoudaiois. The revelation was to "the outstandinglydevoted among them." By the time of Eusebius, the kind of devotednessthat entitled a person to be called spoudaios was coming to be recognizedas what later was called the religious life.

6 In Eusebius, Church History, vi. 14.9, Alexander claims to have learnedfrom Pantaenus, and Clement, vi. 11.6 shows that Clement was with himduring his imprisonment. It is not certain, though quite likely, thatAlexander and Clement first met in the school of Pantaenus. At leastthe Alexandrine connections explain Alexander's actions concerningOrigen.

7 Origen died as a result of what he had suffered, some two years after thepersecution.

8 On this subject, see Note 2, p. xv, in Prof. F. L. Cross, St. Cyril of Jeru-salem*s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments, S.P.C.K., 1951, where the debtof Jerusalem, and the Holy Land, as a sanctuary for Christians, to Eusebius,is well stated. For Origen's knowledge of the Holy Land, see AgainstCelsus, i. 51 (cave of Bethlehem) or iv. 44 (wells of Ascalon), and elsewhere.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 6l

claims made by the Church of Aelia at the beginning of thefourth century to inherit a great tradition. The cycle of legendsurrounding the figure of Narcissus may have been collectedfrom word of mouth, but it shows that the Jerusalemites of thetime of Eusebius believed in the past glories of their Church.9

Associated with this hagiology was a written list of episcopalsuccessions, containing the names of fifteen bishops of thecircumcision down to Hadrian, and of fifteen Gentile bishops ofAelia.10 C. H. Turner is no doubt right in calling this list forthe most part a pious fiction.* 2 But the motive for its compositionwas clearly to proclaim that the Church of Aelia was truesuccessor in a line that stretched back, in the end, to the firstand original Church of Jerusalem. We must not, therefore,attribute all the glories of Cyril's Jerusalem to the rise ofpilgrimage, or to imperial favour. Much was a heritage fromthe past.

Part of this heritage was no doubt a tradition of doctrine,and in particular of norms of baptismal catechesis. For all thefreshness with which Cyril handles his matter, in catecheticallecturing, we may judge that he is guided by church tradition,when we note how impervious he is to the contemporarytheological disturbances. The synod of Nicaea, in 325, haddeclared that believers must be made safe against the errors ofArius by receiving the doctrine that the Son is consubstantial(homoousios) with the Father.12 In spite of this, for a quarter ofa century, a vogue for the Arian way of thinking spread amongHellenized church leaders throughout the Levant, includingthe metropolitan of Caesarea. Yet in his lectures Cyril teacheshis photizomenoi as if, in their preparation, Arius and Nicaeahad best be equally ignored. He warned them against Arianerrors, but never utters Arius' name. Equally he never mentionsthe word "consubstantial." This is the behaviour of one who,in an unsettled age, relies upon a very assured doctrinal tradition.

9 Eusebius, Church History, v. 23.3 shows Narcissus of Jerusalem presiding,together with Theophilus of Gaesarea, over a Palestinian synod as farback as the last decade of the second century.

10 Eusebius, op. cit., iv. 5.1* Journal of Theological Studies, I (1900), 529-553.12 The synod took the baptismal creed of Caesarea, as divulged by Eusebius

in proof of his orthodoxy, and added to it the agreed safeguards. Theimplication is that the safeguards were to be applied at the level ofcatechesis, when the baptizands received the baptismal creed of theirown church: not that every church should take the Caesarean form inplace of their own.


And the same explanation applies to the public behaviour ofhis immediate predecessors in the see of Jerusalem. Thus, whenArius wrote the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia which forms theopening document of the Arian controversy,1* he namesMacarius of Jerusalem as one of three incurable reactionariesobstructing the advance of a more enlightened theology in theorient. He calls Macarius a man devoid of theological learning.But as he says the like of Philogonius, head of the great Churchof Antioch, it is probable that he and Macarius had differentcriteria in matters of divine learning. Cyril's lectures make itabsurd to suppose that the Church of Jerusalem was plunged instolid ignorance. Yet three years before the sunshine of imperialfavour fell upon that Church, its bishop stood out in the mindof Arius as one not to be driven in the direction he would havehad him go. Maximus of Jerusalem, as we have seen, was nomore to be driven in that way than was Macarius. And thewhole career of Cyril testifies how little he was to be stampededin matters of doctrine. He knew, however, what was going onin the learned world; and though his wit as an exegete is toosharpened by anti-Jewish polemic to let him lean much toallegorism, he perpetrates a few discreet Origenisms.14 But inthe lectures he is the practical ecclesiastic, first and foremost,aiming to render his Church orthodox and glorious, and hispeople upright and devout. There has been a time when scholars,observing that the framework of the creed of the Council ofConstantinople had much in common with the arrangement ofthe Jerusalem baptismal creed, as that is to be gathered fromCyril's lectures, thought that it might have been in Cyril's brainthat the Canstantinopolitanum took shape. Now it appears thatthe probabilities are against it.15 There is no evidence of Cyrilengaging in the speculative ideas that formed the currency ofthe Arian controversy. His qualities, of scriptural learning andappreciation of the spiritual value of the ecclesiastic doctrine,were not foremost in many of the bishops who play leadingparts in the polemics of the time. The turn in his fortunes camewhen, pure rationalism having entered the field in the personsof Aetius and Eunomius, bishops were shocked into a fresh

13 Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 69.6, Theodoret, History of the Church% i. 5and Latin sources.

n E.g., his doctrine of the forgiveness of angels in Lecture 11. 9.is Dr. J. N. D. Kelly reviews the history of this argument in treating

of the Creed of Constantinople, in his Early Christian Creeds^ London,


valuation of ecclesiastical tradition.16 Then, from 359, he beganto be trusted and admired by the eastern bishops who werebeginning to feel their way back to a Nicene orthodoxy. Henever lost the loyalty of Jerusalem Christians. If we may trustJerome, three men, intruded into his throne by party politics,had in turn to yield place to him, so soon as he was able toreturn to the holy city. All these facts fit to one explanation, thatCyril represented and conserved a venerable teaching tradition,that of the Church of Aelia-Jerusalem, which, for all its vicis-situdes, had known no absolute severance since the first daysof the faith. This tradition moulded these lectures of Lent, 350,that have come down to us. And though they were delivereda quarter of a century after Nicaea, yet, by the deliberate policyof Cyril, they bring to us the voice of the ante-Nicene Church.16 See the history of the Synod of Ancyra, 358, and its consequences. See

particularly the synodical letter of Ancyra in Epiphanius, Panarion,Heresy 73.6, and its rejection of "human wisdom."

Selections from the Catechetical Lectures

THE INTRODUCTORY LECTURE, OR

PROCATECHESISi

i. Already the savour of bliss is upon you, who have cometo be enlightened2; you have begun to pluck spiritual flowerswith which to weave you heavenly crowns.3 Already are you

1 The transcript made for use in Jerusalem simply records CyriFs words,without preface or commentary. Fortunately Aetheria's words fit so wellto Cyril's at this point that we can write our own preface, from chs. 45and 46 of her Pilgrimage. The enrolling of the candidates closed by theSunday before the eight weeks of Lent began. On the Monday morningthe candidates ascended the steps of the Martyry to find the doors ajar,and door-keepers scrutinizing them as they filed in. Inside, they foundthat the bishop's throne had been brought from the apse, and set in themiddle of the great nave. Stewards caused the candidates to sit in asemicircle facing the throne, men on one side and women the other,with the godparents standing behind them. Then there came in thebishop's procession: first the vowed virgins and widows, deacons, pres-byters, and, last, the bishop. The bishop took his throne, and the presbyterstheir seats on either side. The rest of the procession took positions standingbehind the presbytry, facing the candidates. It was at this point that thebishop began his Procatechesis.

2 Photizomenou In the Latin west, at this stage, the title used was competentes,"candidates." The east regarded them as having advanced a stage, andentered on privileges which, in the catechumenate, they did not enjoy;as inceptors, rather than mere candidates. In the non-Christian Greekmystery religions, initiation involved the revealing of symbols andrepresentations to the initiate, and this was called "enlightenment"; infact, "enlighten" came to be a synonym for "initiate," and may be soused, in a Christian sense, in Heb. 6:4 and 10:32. So photismos, "en-lightenment" came to mean baptism, and the title photizomenoi wasappropriated to those in this last stage of their preparation which beganwith the season of Lent.

3 These "crowns" or wreaths are not royal or triumphal, but those wornfor banquets. As catechumens, they have been frequenting the first partof the liturgy, hearing the lections from Scripture, taking part in prayers,and listening to sermons. This is what Cyril likens to plucking spiritual

64

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES 65

redolent of the fragrance of the Holy Spirit. You have reachedthe royal vestibule. O may the King himself conduct youwithin!

Lo, now the trees are in blossom; and grant the fruit beduly gathered!

So far, your names have been enrolled,4 and you have beencalled up for service. The lamps have been kindled for thewedding procession. There is longing for the citizenship ofheaven. There is good intention, with hope, to back it up. Hecannot lie that saith "All things work together for good to themthat love God."5 For while God is lavish to do us good, he looksfor a worthy resolve on the part of each, wherefore the Apostlecontinues "To them that are called according to his purpose."If your intention is worthy, that it is that sets you among these"called." For though you be present here in the body, that isno use if your heart be not here as well.

2. Once upon a time there came to the font Simon the Sor-cerer.6 He was baptized, but he was not enlightened, for whilehis body went under the water, his heart let not in the lightof the Spirit. He plunged his body and came up, but, in hissoul, he was neither buried with Christ nor did he rise againwith him.7 Now I give you sketches of failures, just so that youmay not fail. For "these things happened unto them for en-samples: and they are written for our admonition,"8 who followin their footsteps, down to this very day. Let none of you be

flowers to weave themselves crowns. And now, adorned with what theyhave gathered on their way, they approach the banquet.

4 The registration for "enlightenment" is now likened to enlistment in themilitia Christi. In the next phrase it is likened to entry in the franchise-rollof the heavenly city.

5 Rom. 8:28. 6 Acts 8:13.7 It is remarkable that whereas the baptismal symbolism of Rom. 6:3-14

is the theme of the second mystagogic lecture, Cyril treats the ceremonialand ritual of baptism as already known to the photizomenoi. This arguesthat the mystagogic lectures are not Cyril's but John's. John, accordingto Aetheria, told the photizomenoi on Palm Sunday that they were stillcatechumens, and not yet able to hear the words which belong to thehigher mystery, baptism itself. It thus appears that, in the interval be-tween the delivery of this Procatechesis and John, a considerable changeof emphasis took place. Cyril puts the stress on the conversion that hasbrought the candidates to register, so that, in his eyes, they begin"already" to be Christians. John puts the emphasis on the sacramentalinitiation, treating the class (as was the case in the west) as just candidates.It appears, therefore, that the tone of the Procatechesis in this respect,either fitted the early fourth century or is something individual to Cyril.

8 I Cor. 10:11.

5—c.J.


found abusing God's grace; let not any "root of bitternessspringing up trouble you,"9 as that any of you should enter heresaying to himself, Come, let us see what believers10 do. I willenter and see, and learn what is done. Are you expecting tosee, and not expecting to be seen ?x l Do you suppose that youcan occupy yourself with what goes on, while God will notconcern himself with the state of your heart ?

3. In the Gospels we are told of a man, once, who pushedhis way into a wedding party12; how, wearing unsuitable clothes,he went in, took a place, and ate, since the bridegroom lethim do so. Now when he saw that all were in their brightestclothes,13 he ought to have changed into his. But in his ap-pearance and by his attitude, he was an odd man out, althoughhe was quite one of the party where the food was concerned.The bridegroom, for his part, though bountiful, was notundiscerning; and as he went round the party, giving hisattention to each in turn (not, of course, with any thoughtwhat they were eating, but simply of their nice manners), hecame upon this complete stranger not dressed for the occasion.So he said to him, "Friend, how earnest thou in hither? I mean,in those filthy clothes? Where was your conscience? Grantedthat, as the host is lavish, the porter did not stop you coming in:granted that, when you entered you did not know what sortof clothes the party demanded: you came in and saw peopleat table in brilliant costume: ought you not to have been putright by what you saw? Should you not have taken your chanceto withdraw and come back suitably dressed? Well, now, youcame in unceremoniously for us to throw you out unceremon-9 Heb. 12:15. "Let none of you be found abusing (or 'presuming upon')

God's grace" is a rough paraphrase of the first half of the verse.10 Pistoi, the title of Christians after baptism. Cyril gives it to his class by

anticipation, to evoke their eagerness.11 While the reference is to the all-seeing eye of God, it must be remembered

that the candidates were under the continued scrutiny of the whole ofthe bishop's suite.

12 The reference is to Matt. 22: 1-14, and specially t o w . n - 1 3 . Theparable as it stands in St Matthew is clearly the clamping together oftwo quite independent parables, so that no circumstance of v. 10 isapplicable to the next three verses. This was obvious to Cyril, who feelshimself at liberty to supply his own account of the circumstances underwhich the unmannerly guest arrived.

13 Or, literally, "white garments," in which sense the word is in use inclassical Greek. Later the word came to be the equivalent of "dressedin one's best." But at baptism, the photizomenoi would be literally all inwhite. The man's offence is to have made no attempt to dress for theoccasion.


iously." So the bridegroom orders the servants, "Bind his feet,which had the hardihood to bring him in here. Bind his hands,that could not dress him properly. And throw him out intothe darkness outside, for he does not deserve wedding lights."

You, my friends, take note what happened to that man onthat occasion. Make sure that what you are doing now is allas it should be.

4. For we, Christ's ministers, have received each one of you.If you think of us as, figuratively, his door-keepers, then wehave left the door unfastened. There has been nothing to stopyou coming here with your soul covered in the mire of sins,with purpose anything but pure. And in you have come, beenpassed as fit,14 and your name inscribed on the roll. Look, I askyou, at this solemn setting of the Church. Give heed to theorder and thought-out arranging of it, the Scripture lessons,the attendance of the entire ecclesiastical body,15 the arrange-ments for teaching. Let the very place put you in awe, and beadmonished by what you behold. Be glad to make your escapenow,16 so as to return tomorrow in a better disposition. Let ussay that your soul is wrapped in avarice. When you come back,let it wear a different dress: I do not mean on top of the oldone, but with the old one taken off. Strip off, I beg, fornicationand uncleanness and put on that brilliant robe, self-discipline.Off with the former habit, I charge you, e'er Jesus, bridegroom

14 Aetheria tells us that, at what would correspond to the opening of thesession at which, later on, the Procatechesis was to be given, the bishopinterrogated referees as to the good life and character of each personwhose name had been given in. Only when thus satisfied, did the bishopinscribe the candidate's name on his official roll. Anyone with whomhe was not thus satisfied would have been sent away before the Procate-chesis was delivered. Cyril, on the other hand, is here, in the Pro-catechesis itself, pleading that any candidate should withdraw who knowshimself to be in a wrong disposition for going forward. John's differentprocedure shows that, as the century went on, less and less reliance was,or could be, placed upon the discretion of candidates.

15 The canonici, or persons on the canon or roll of those entitled to supportfrom the church chest. The term includes, besides the clergy proper, thewomen under religious vows and perhaps some men employed by thechurch in lesser ministrations. The candidates are to judge how truly itis a "wedding-feast" to which they are come, by the presence of theentire staff, and it is probable that all the canonici were to be employedin some way in teaching the photizomenoi.

16 Cyril supposes that his words have pricked the conscience of someonewho came light-heartedly through such public scrutiny as then took place,so that he feels as the unmannerly guest in the parable ought to have felt.He needs to think again, but may return the next day.


of souls, comes to view your array! You have a long period ofgrace, forty days for repentance.17 You have plenty of time todiscard and wash thoroughly your soul's apparel, and so toclothe yourself and come back. But if you just continue in yourevil disposition, I have cleared myself by telling you, but youcannot expect to receive God's grace. For though the waterwill receive you, the Holy Spirit will not. If any be consciousthat his soul is wounded, let him receive the salve. If any havefallen, let him get up. Let there be no Simon among you, letthere be no hypocrisy, let there be no idle curiosity to see whathappens.

5. Perhaps you had a different reason for coming. For itis quite what might happen, that a man should be wanting toadvance his suit with a Christian woman, and to that end hascome here. And there is the like possibility the other way round.Or often it may be a slave that wanted to please his master,or a person that comes for the sake of his friend. I accept this asbait for the hook, and I welcome you as one who shall be saved,by a good hope, in spite of having come with an unsound in-tention. It may well be that you did not know where you werecoming or what sort of a net it is that is taking you. And nowyou are inside the ecclesiastical fishnets. Let yourself be taken,do not make off, for Jesus is angling for you, not to make youdie, but by his having died, to make you live. For die you must,and rise again, as you heard how the Apostle says "Dead indeedunto sin, but alive" unto righteousness.18 Die to your sins andlive unto righteousness. As from today, I say, live.

6. Look, I ask you, and see with how great a dignity Jesusfavours you. You were called catechumen, which means oneinto whom something is dinned from without.19 You heard ofsome hope, but you did not know what. You heard mysterieswithout understanding anything. You heard scriptures withoutplumbing their depth. It is not dinned in, any more, butwhispered. For the indwelling Spirit is fashioning your mindinto mansions for God. When you hear, in future, scripturesconcerning mysteries, you will understand things you knew17 This length of Lenten fasting is not likely to have been of very long

standing at Jerusalem. It was only during his first exile in 335 thatAthanasius learned of the 40-day Lent observed at Rome. Before that,the Egyptian churches had only kept the fast through Holy Week.

!8 A conflation of Rom. 6:11 and I Peter 2:24.!9 katechein is to make resound. So a catechumen was literally one who

was having the elements dinned into him. Cyril exaggerates a little here,to exalt the status of the photizomenou


nothing of. And do not esteem as if a trifle what you arereceiving. Being but a wretched man, you are recipient of adivine title. For listen to Paul "God is faithful,"20 or to anothertext in Scripture, "God is faithful and just." It was as foreseeingthat a divine title would come to be applied to men that thePsalmist, speaking in the Person of God, said, "I have said, yeare gods, and are all the children of the Most High."21 But seethat when the title is faithful, the purpose is not faithless. Youhave entered the contest, run your course steadfastly. No otherchance like this will come your way. If it was your weddingday ahead of you, would you not make light of all else, inpreparing the banquet? When, then, you are going to conse-crate your soul to the heavenly Bridegroom, will you not let thethings of the body take their chance, so that you may take firmhold on the things of the spirit ?

7. This bath is not to be taken two or three times, else youmight say, if I do not succeed at the first trial, I shall go rightat the second. But in this matter, if you do not succeed thisonce, there is no correcting it. For there is "one Lord, onefaith, one baptism";22 seeing that certain heretics repeatbaptism, but only such, and of course what they did in thefirst instance was not baptism.23

8. For what God seeks from us is nothing else but a rightintention. Do not ask, How are my sins wiped out ? I tell you,it is by your willing it, by your believing. How can I put it more

20 Pistos can mean either one who puts his trust in someone, or one in whomtrust can be pu t ; believer, or faithful. Pistos meant a baptized Christian,taken in the sense, Believer. Pistos, applied to God, meant faithful. Cyrilplays on the two senses of pistos. The texts cited are I Cor. 1; 9 andI John 1:9.

21 Ps. 82:6.22 Eph. 4:5. The possibility of post-baptismal penance is here being held

in reserve.23 Cyril is not saying that heretical baptism is no baptism, but that some

heretical rites that could be called "baptisms" are devoid of thatcharacter. Any that are repeatable are devoid of that character, for itis of the nature of the sacrament instituted by Christ that it should beonce for all, so that any rite conceived repeatable is ipso facto not baptism.The question what heretics Cyril has in mind takes us to the refutationof heresies in Lecture vi. It is probable that the Manichees are most inhis mind, in the present passage, for their lustrations before prayer mightmake it a point of propaganda against orthodoxy that they offered areadier way of escape from sin. He may have had also the Marcionitesand Valentinians in view. But his clear intention is to remove from theminds of his hearers the notion that it would be desirable that baptismwere not beset with such finality as it if:


succinctly ? Yet if your lips declare you willing, but your heartdoes not, remember that he who judges reads the heart.24 Breakoff, as from today, from every evil practice. Let not your tonguerun to irresponsible talk, nor your gaze lead you astray or goroving where it ought not.

9. But let your feet hasten to these times of instruction.Submit yourself to be exorcized with all eagerness. Whetherit be insufflation25 or exorcism, the concern is for your salvation.Imagine that you had crude gold, adulterated, mingled withall sorts of other substances, such as brass and tin, iron andlead. It is the gold that we want to have by itself. There is noway of getting gold purged of foreign substances except by usingfire. In just the same way, the soul cannot be purged except byexorcisms. Now exorcisms have divine power, being collectedout of divine Scripture. The veil thrown over your face atexorcism is so that your mind may then be receptive, and thata wandering gaze may not cause a distracted heart as well.But when the eyes are veiled, there is nothing to hinder theears from receiving the means of salvation. For (to go back tothe subject of gold) experienced goldsmiths concentrate a blaston the fire by use of fine blowpipes, and drive it onto the gold-ore hiding its gold in the crucible. So, by chafing the availableflame, they find what they seek. In exactly the same way the24 kardiognostes, A c t s 1 : 2 4 ; 1 5 : 8 .25 We might call insufflation the ceremonial act in exorcism, the ritual

counterpart consisting of the fierce adjurations of the invisible evil power,with injunctions, backed up by fearful threats, to depart and leave thesubject of exorcism. Gregory of Nyssa, writing but shortly after theselectures of Cyril, describes thus an exorcism performed by GregoryThaumaturgus: "He took the linen scarf from off his shoulders, andbreathed upon it with his mouth; after which he cast it over the youth"to be exorcized. If this is taken in conjunction with what Cyril says, afew lines down, of the faces of those being exorcized as covered witha veil, we may picture the exorcist as naming the Name of Jesus, invokingthe Holy Spirit, breathing upon a linen kerchief, and throwing it over theface of the candidate, who was perhaps lying prone. Bending over thecandidate, and stretching out his hand to sign the cross, the exorcistnow pronounces the solemn and dreadful (and as Cyril presently tellsus, scriptural) formulae of exorcism, cursing the fiends and consigningthem to eternal punishment, in such a manner as to excite in the can-didate lively fear, and a positive abhorrence of the thought of evil.Bishop John explains, in his second mystagogic lecture, that the"breathing" of Christians, with invocation of the Name of God, likefiercest flame, scorches and drives out evil spirits. Cyril sees the psycho-logical value of the candidate not being able to see, during the exorcism,and evidently regards these exorcisms before each catechesis as an im-portant aid to devout and receptive hearing.


exorcists,26 by divine Spirit, excite fear, apply fire to the soul inthe body for crucible. The demonic enemy is driven out, andthere is left salvation: there is left the hope of eternal life. And,after that, the soul cleansed of its sins, possesses salvation.

Let us, then, my brethren, endure in hope. Let us devoteourselves, side by side with our hoping, so that the God of allthe universe, as he beholds our intention, may cleanse us fromour sins, fill us with high hopes from what we have in hand, andgrant us the change of heart that saves. God has called you, andyou have your calling.

10. So persevere with the catechizings. If we prolong ourdiscourse, never let your mind relax, seeing that what you arebeing provided with is your arms against the operations of yourfoe. You are being armed against heresies, against Jews,Samaritans27 and pagans. Your foes are many, and you mustbe given many darts, for you have many to hurl them at. Youneed to learn to shoot down your scoffing pagan, and how tofight your heretic, Jew or Samaritan. Your weapons are allready, and readiest of all is the sword of the Spirit. You musthold out your right hands for them, that is, have a right inten-tion to fight the Lord's battle, to overcome the operations ofyour foe, and not be worsted in any heretic encounter.

11. Let this be your solemn charge; learn the things that aretold you, and keep them for ever. Do not think of them as on apar with ordinary sermons. Sermons are good things, and

26 There was evidently a technique in exorcism, calling for faith, aptitude,and training; and one that met its severest test when the subject wasmentally disordered, or "possessed." It is probable that the ministers ofexorcism in this prebaptismal training were all persons inscribed, insome capacity, on the Canon of the Church; i.e., canonici, if not clerici.

27 The Samaritan religion may be described as an arrested development ofJudaism, from which it passed into schism. The Samaritans formed alimited and dwindling community, down to present times. In the fourthChristian century they had a period of intellectual and religious awaken-ing, under a theologian and hymnographer Marqah, Cyril's contem-porary. The sect was conservative and fanatical. There were severalSamaritan revolts under the Christian empire. And it can well be believedthat, in Cyril's day, Samaritanism was aggressive enough in Palestineto justify a bishop "arming" his baptismal candidates against Samaritanpropaganda. The promise of "arming" is fulfilled by Cyril in LectureXVIII, cc. 11-13, where it appears that the Sadduceeism of the Samaritanswas the special danger, by reason of their arguments against the resur-rection of the flesh. They are coupled with the Jews in Lecture iv, c. 1,as Sabbatarians, and with the pagans in XVIII as disbelievers in theresurrection of the flesh. For fuller particulars about the Samaritans, seeJ. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans (Philadelphia, 1907).


should evoke your faith. But, suppose we neglected today'ssermon; we attend to tomorrow's. In the sequence of carefullyprepared instructions for baptismal regeneration, if today'slecture be neglected, when will the matter be put right? Thinkof this as being the season for planting young trees. If we do notnow dig and set them deep in the earth, when can we findanother opportunity for planting well what has been onceplanted badly? Or think of catechesis as like building.28 We getno profit from toil expended, unless we dig deep to lay thefoundations, unless we mortar together the successive courses ofthe building so as to compact our house in one, with not acrack to be found, nor the structure unsound in any way. Stonemust follow stone in the appointed order, and corners be turnedin each successive course. Unevennesses must be levelled off, sothat the building may rise without fault. So we are profferingto you, as it were, building-stones of knowledge. You have to betold about the living God, you have to be told about the judge-ment, you have to be told about Christ, you have to be toldabout the resurrection. There are many things to be said, andin their proper order. As they are being said, they appear casual,but afterwards they present themselves as all connected to-gether. Now if you do not do the joining of them in one, if youdo not remember what went before and what came after, thebuilder builds his house, but the building you will have will beunsound.

12. So when the instruction is over, if any catechumen triesto get out of you what your teachers29 told you, tell nothing, forhe is outside the mystery that we have delivered to you, withits hope of the age to come. Guard the mystery for his sake fromwhom you look for reward. Never let anyone persuade you,saying "What harm is it that I should know as well?" So, too,sick people ask for wine, whereas, if it is given them when itshould not, it makes them delirious. Thence comes a two-foldevil. The patient dies and the physician gets the blame. In likemanner, if a catechumen hears something divulged by abeliever, it makes the catechumen delirious; for he does notcomprehend what he has heard, so that he thinks nothing of28 The "builder" is Cyril, and the candidates are thought of as building,

in their minds, copies of the course of learning which he builds up inhis lectures. However sound is the course, as he builds it, their buildingwill be unsound unless all through they take the greatest pains.

29 "Teachers" in the plural perhaps suggests that, besides the lecturing ofthe bishop, the other clergy took part in tutorial instruction of thecandidates.


the whole matter, scoffing at what he has been told. Meanwhile,the believer is condemned as the betrayer of his trust.30

Already you stand on the frontier of mystery. I adjure you tosmuggle no word out; not because the things you are told arenot worth the telling again, but because the audience is notfitted to take them in. You, too, were once a catechumen,relatively to this matter. I did not then say a word to you aboutthe things we have now in hand. When, by what you experi-ence, you grasp the sublimity of the things that are being taught,then you will know for yourself that catechumens are not fittedto be told them.

13. You who have been enrolled have become sons anddaughters of one Mother. When you arrive before the time forexorcizing, let each of you speak only what helps to godliness.If any of the class does not arrive, go seek them. If you wereasked out to dinner, would you not wait for a fellow guest ? Ifyou had a brother, would you not seek that brother's good?Whatever you do, do not start unprofitable gossip; about whathas been happening in the city, or your village, or what theemperor has done, or the bishop, or your presbyter. Lift youreyes to God. It is the time for you to need him. "Be still andknow that I am God."31 If you see the believers who are assistingin the church quite at their ease, remember that they havereason to be. They know what they have received, and they arein a state of grace. You, on the other hand, are just in thebalance, to decide whether you shall be received or not. Do notape those who have reached security, but make it your aim tobe in fear.

14. When your exorcism is over, until the others have comefrom theirs, the men are to keep together, and the women areto keep together. This is where the typology of Noah's arkcomes in, for Noah and his sons were together, and his wife anddaughters-in-law together.32 For even though the interior of the30 That is, if the disciplina arcani is betrayed, it is the bishop who is ultimately

wronged. 31 Ps. 46:10.32 The allusion is to Genesis 7:7-9. It is remarkable that Cyril should

expect people just completing catechumenate not only to accept, asunderstood, the principle of typology, but also to remember that whereasthe animals are said to have entered the ark two and two, male andfemale, it is not said that Noah and his wife entered, and his sons andtheir wives, but "Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and hissons' wives." Cyril deduces from this difference, that the men kept toone end of the ark and the women to the other. So he compares thenave of the Martyry to the interior of the ark, and draws his conclusionon the seating of the sexes in the former. It is hard to believe that the


ark was undivided and they were shut in it, yet everything wasordered with propriety. So, if the church-doors are shut andyou are all inside, here too let the separation be preserved, themen together and the women together. We do not want ourlaying the foundation for salvation to prove the occasion of theoverthrow of souls! And if this fair foundation causes you to sitnear one another, then passion must be kept at a distance. Inthese waiting-times, let the men have some edifying book andsit down, while one reads and others listen. If there is no bookavailable, let one man offer a prayer, and another speak toedification. Again, let the bevy of maids foregather in the sameway, and sing or read so quietly that the whispered words willnot be heard by anyone else. For, says the Apostle, "I suffer nota woman to speak in the church."33 And you, matron, imitatethe maids and pray, moving your lips but making no sound,that your Samuel may be granted you,34 and that your soul,hitherto barren, may bring forth salvation from God that hearsprayer.35 For that is the interpretation of the name Samuel.

15. I shall see each man's earnestness. I shall see eachwoman's devotion. Burn out impiety from your mind,36 putyour soul on the anvil and your stubborn infidelity under thehammer. Let the loose scales fall from the iron and leave puremetal. Let the iron rust fall off and leave clean iron. And mayGod at length grant you to see that night when darkness isturned into day,37 of which it was said "the darkness hideth notfrom thee, but the night shall shine as the day." Then let thegate of paradise be opened to each man and each womanamong you. Then may you enjoy waters that bear Christ andhave his sweet savour. Then may you receive his name ofChristian, and the capacity for heavenly things. And even now,

matter was dismissed in those few words, or that the argument was notelaborated from the Bible text in tutorial instruction to follow.

33 I Cor. 14:34. 34 The allusion is to I Sam. 1:12-17.35 Cyril thus accepts a derivation of the name Samuel from Hebrew words

meaning "heard of God." Modern Hebrew scholarship does not acceptthis derivation, but it seemed to explain Hannah's words in I Sam.1:20. The comment suggests that Cyril had some acquaintance withHebrew.

36 Cyril is returning to the simile, introduced in section 9, of purifying metalby fire.

37 When darkness fell on Easter eve, all the lights in the church andbaptistry were kindled, as Aetheria tells us, from candles lit by the bishopin the Sepulchre, and the illumination was maintained throughout thenight. Cyril sees Ps. 139:12, "the night shineth as the day," as a pro-phecy of this. See the note 21 on Lecture xvm. 17 below.


I pray you, lift up the eyes of your mind: take thought now ofangelic choirs, and God the master of the universe enthroned,with his only-begotten Son sitting on his right hand, and hisSpirit with him, while thrones and dominations do himservice, and likewise each man and woman of you as being in astate of salvation. Even now imagine that your ears catch thoselovely strains wherewith the angels acclaim you saved. "Blessedare those whose transgressions are forgiven and whose sins arecovered"38 when, as stars of the Church, you enter paradisewith glorious body and radiant soul.

16. Great is this baptism to which you are coming: it isransom to captives and remission of sins. It is the death of sinand the spul's regeneration. It is a garment of light and a holyseal39 that can never be dissolved. It is a chariot to heaven, thedelights of paradise, the pledge of the kingdom, the gift of son-ship. But a dragon is keeping watch beside the road you arewalking. Take care lest he bite you with unbelief. He sees somany on the way to being saved, and seeks whom he maydevour. The end of your journey is the Father of Spirits, but theway lies past that dragon. How, then, shall you get past him?By having "your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel ofpeace"40 so as to take no hurt, though he do bite. Let faith dwellin your heart, have a strong hope, and be strongly shod, to getby the enemy and reach the Master's presence. Prepare your38 Ps . 3 2 : 1 .39 The root-idea here connected with a seal is that it is a mark of ownership.

T h e notion of the worshipper as the property of the god is probably ofSemitic origin. The rabbis saw circumcision as Jehovah 's seal on thosewho were his. In Romans 4:11 Paul takes up this idea. I t was a tokento Abraham of the covenant which had made him God's man. Soonafter the close of the New Testament canon Christians had begun, atleast in Rome, to a p p l y the title "seal" (sphragis) to baptism, possiblyas the counterpart , under the new covenant, to circumcision. But thisis not explicit. Hermas , Similitudes 8.6, 9.16 and I I Clement 7 refer tobaptism as " t h e seal ," and exhort Christians to "guard the seal." Theyprobably reflect R o m a n usage, and it is the Roman Church which theepitaph of Abercius, later in the second century, calls "a people havinga splendid seal." From that time forward, the use of the title "seal"for baptism becomes widespread, and attracts to itself New Testamentassociations. I t is thus the seal attesting God's forgiveness, or that passesthe believer i n t o the Messianic Kingdom (Rev. 7 :3 ; 9:4). The chrismof holy oil applied after baptism may have conduced to connecting thenotions of seal and baptism, and it later attracted the title "seal" moreparticularly to itself. But as baptism left no visible mark, Cyril emphasizesthe indelible character invisibly imprinted on the soul of the baptized,and calls it " a holy seal that can never be dissolved."

40 Eph. 6:15.


heart to receive instruction, and enter into holy mysteries. Prayyet more often that God will judge you worthy of heavenly andimmortal mysteries. Cease not day or night, but when sleep fallsfrom your eyes, then let your mind free itself to pray. Shouldyou see some unbecoming thought rising into consciousness,take the remembrance of judgement as means of safety. Devoteyour mind to study, and evil concerns will slip from it. If youmeet someone who says "Are you getting ready to plunge in thewater? Are there no city baths any more?" then know that thedragon of the sea41 got ready these temptations for you. Mindnot the lips that speak but the God that works. Guard your soul,that you be not caught, and persevering in hope may be heirof eternal salvation.

17. We are but human, who declare and teach these things.Do not you make of our building "hay, stubble," and chaff, sothat we suffer loss, in our work being burnt up. But make ourwork "gold, silver, precious stones."42 It is my part to tell you,yours to carry it forward, but God's to bring it to completion.Let us brace our minds, concentrate our souls, prepare ourhearts. The race is run in matters of soul, and the prize consistsof rewards in heaven. And God, who knows your hearts and cantell who is genuine and who but feigns, is able to keep theformer steadfast and bring the latter to a state of faith. For Godcan turn an infidel into a believer, if he will but surrender tohim his heart. May God "blot out the handwriting that isagainst you,"43 wink at your transgressions heretofor, plant youin his Church, enrol you in his own host, and equip you withthe arms of righteousness. May he fill you with the heavenlyguerdons of the New Testament and give you the seal of theHoly Spirit, that cannot be removed for evermore, in JesusChrist our Lord, to whom be glory, world without end. Amen.

NOTE TO THE READER44

You may give these catechetical lectures to pkotizomenoi, inpreparation for baptism, to read, and to believers who havealready received the sacrament of the font. Do not give them,under any circumstances, to catechumens or to any other41 Perhaps an allusion to Rev. 13:1.« I Cor. 3:12, 15. « Col. 2:14.44 This note after the Procatechesis corresponds to the note that follows

Lecture xvm in our oldest MS. It is therefore not the words of Cyril,but those of the persons who took down Cyril's lectures, and put theminto secret and confidential circulation.


persons not actually Christian, as you shall answer to the Lord.And, as in the sight of the Lord, you shall transcribe this notebefore any copy that you make of the lectures.

L E C T U R E I

On the temper of mind requisite for baptism

Delivered extempore in Jerusalem to photizomenoi, by way ofintroduction to those going forward to baptism. The Lessonis from Isaiah, "Wash you, make you clean; put away theevil of your doings from before mine eyes," and the rest.1

1. Disciples of the new covenant and sharers in the mysteriesof Christ (at this moment because God calls you, but in a littlewhile by enjoying his grace), "make you a new heart and a newspirit"2 that you may be the occasion of jubilation in heaven.For if the Gospel says that "there is joy over one sinner thatrepenteth,"3 how much the more will the saving of so manysouls rejoice the heavenly hosts! The course4 you have com-menced is good and glorious: run the race of godliness withgodly fear. For the only-begotten Son of God is at hand, lookingintently to your redemption, and saying "Come unto me, allye that labour and are heavily laden, and I will refresh you."5

You who are laden with the heavy burden of your own trans-gressions, and are bound with the chains of your own sins,6

listen to the voice of prophecy crying "Wash you, make youclean: put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes"that the angelic host may shout over you, proclaiming "Blessedare they whose iniquities have been forgiven, and whose sinsare covered."7 You who have but now kindled the torches8 of1 The Lection is Isa. 1:16-20, the call to conversion, with offer of pardon,

and the declaration of reward and punishment assigned to the good orbad response.

2 Ezek. 18:31. 3 Luke 15:7.4 Cyril now begins a changing succession of pictures based on making

one's way to a destination. It begins as just that, then it is running therace of godliness. But just as we expect Heb. 12:2, Cyril changes thepicture to that of laborious progress by laden people, and finally again topeople in procession to a marriage feast, hastening and swinging theirtorches to make them burn up.

5 Matt. 11:28. 6 Prov. 5:22. 7 Ps. 32:1.8 Torches (lampades). The word is however that used in Matt. 25:1-13,

the parable of the ten virgins, where the context clearly requires lamps,with wicks; and while that may be the image in Cyril's mind here, theother seems to fit better his choice of words.


faith, do not let them go out in your hands, that he who onceon this all-holy Golgotha opened paradise to a robber, bymeans of faith, may cause that you shall sing the marriagesong.

2. Should anyone here be a slave of sin, let him, through hisfaith, be now intent on gaining that regeneration into adoptionas sons that befits free men, and while he puts from him thatmost miserable bondage to his sins and obtains the most blessedstatus of the Lord's bondsman, let him become worthy toinherit the kingdom of the heavens. "Put off the old man, whichis corrupt according to the deceitful lusts"9 by making yourconfession,10 so as to "put on the new man, which is renewedafter the knowledge of him that created him."11 Obtain byfaith "the earnest of the Holy Spirit"12 so that you can bereceived "into the everlasting habitations."13 Proceed to themystical sealing, so as to be readily recognizable14 by yourMaster, and be counted together into the holy and spiritualflock of Christ, set apart at his right hand,15 inheriting the lifeprepared for you in heaven. For those still clothed in the goat's-hair of their sins are placed on Christ's left hand, because of notgoing forward in the grace of God to the baptismal regenerationgiven through Christ, a new birth, not corporeal, but a spiritualrebirth of soul. For corporeal birth is from visible parents, butsouls are reborn by means of faith; because "The Spiritbloweth where it listeth."16 So, if you become worthy of it, you

9 Eph. 4:22.!o We must not assume that secret auricular confession is here meant, after

the manner in which it later came to be practised by baptized Christiansin the churches of the west. The confession in this passage is a confessionmade by unbaptized persons of sins against the divine law committed inthe ignorance of paganism. Didache iv. 14 directs "Thou shalt confessthy transgressions in church" as part of the ideal prebaptismal disciplineof Gentile converts. "In church" suggests a degree of publicity. Thephotizomenoi are to be told that baptism will be plenary remission of thesesins. The object of calling for confession, at this stage, must be to exercisethe spiritual judgement of the photizomenoi. They are being exorcized, dayby day, during their preparation, and this trains them to view theirsinfulness as a kind of demon-possession. But there is also the fact thatthe evil past is something to which they are habituated, and, for this,confession also is prescribed.

u A conflation of Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10.12 II Cor. 1:22. 13 Luke 16:9.14 Baptism is thus represented as giving an indelible character to the soul,

visible to God, as that of those whom he has given to Christ out of theworld. (John 10:28-29.)

is Matt. 25:33. 16 John 3:8.


can look to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant,"17 whenyou are found with conscience void of all dissimulation.

3. Should anyone here suppose that he can presume upondivine grace, he deceives himself, ignoring God's might. Tosuch I say, Keep your soul sincere, in view of him "whosearcheth the hearts and reins."18 For just as people preparingfor a campaign look into the age and physique of the troops, solikewise the Lord, as he reviews elect souls, searches out theirdispositions, and if he finds hidden insincerity he rejects thatperson as unsuited for the warfare par excellence. If, however, heapproves him worthy, then he readily pours his favour uponhim. He does not "give that which is holy to dogs,"19 but wherehe sees that the disposition is good, there he grants the savingseal,20 the wonderful seal, at sight of which devils tremble,which angels acknowledge; and, in consequence, the formerare driven off and put to flight, while the latter attend uponthe seal-bearer as a thing belonging to their service. Those,then, who receive this spiritual and saving seal require alsoto have the appropriate disposition. For just as a pen or ajavelin is idle unless it have a user, so likewise divine grace21

depends upon meeting with human faith.

17 Matt. 25:21. 18 A conflation of Ps. 7:9 with Rev. 2:23.19 Matt. 7:6.20 Cyr i l makes n o a t t e m p t to reconci le the opus operatum concept ion of the

sacrament of baptism with his very wholesome insistence on the sub-jective side of conversion. He cannot be taken to mean that no one comesto baptism in an unworthy state, and he does not discuss the effect ofsuch baptisms, beyond implying that they fail of the purpose of baptism.But it would be a fair inference to suppose that no godly character isstamped upon the soul that receives baptism without the right disposition.It is not Cyril's interest to make such a definition, but rather to encourageeagerness to receive the sacrament profitably.

21 Literally "the grace," i.e., the supernatural gift covenanted by thesacrament of baptism. There is no question that, in the early centuriesof the Church, the baptized commonly found themselves, after receivingthe sacrament, able to overcome the world, and live for God, in a waythey had never thought possible. A notable testimony to this experienceis Cyprian's Letter to Donatus, ii and iii. Here Cyprian tells how hard hefound it to credit what he heard of the power of baptism to change aman's life, above all by affecting the strength of his habits and temptations;but that he found himself, after baptism, "created into a new man," sothat former difficulties and confusions disappeared. But it was a naturalconsequence of this insistence upon a sensible change, as the hoped-forgift of God in baptism, that "the grace" became, in a sense, detached,in men's minds, from the Giver, so that Cyril could compare it to a thingwhich a man can use or not use. So established was this notion of aspecific effect upon spiritual life to be expected from baptism that Gregory


4. You are being armed not with perishable but withspiritual weapons. The paradise in which you are being plantedis the soul's paradise,22 wherein you will be named23 with aname you had not heretofore. You were a catechumen till now,but now you are to be called believer. Henceforth you aretransplanted among the olives of that paradise: or are beinggrafted on a good olive tree being taken from a wild olive24.You pass from sins to righteousness, from defilements to purity.You are becoming part of the Holy Vine. If, then, you abidein the Vine,25 you grow into a fruitful branch, but if you donot so abide, you will be burnt up in the fire. Let us thereforebring forth worthy fruit. For let not that come about, thatthere should happen to us what happened to the barren figtreein the Gospel.26 Let not Jesus come in these days and utter thecurse upon the fruitless: but be it instead that all of you say,"I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; my trust isin the tender-mercy of God, for ever and ever" ;27 not a materialolive tree, but a spiritual and glorious one. It is God that plantsand waters, but it is yours to bear fruit; God's to bestow thegift, and yours to receive it and keep it for ever. But do notesteem the gift lightly because it is given gratis. Rather receiveit reverently and guard it with care.

5. This is the season of confession. Confess your past sins ofword, and deed, sins of the night and sins by day. Confess "ina time accepted, and in the day of salvation"28 receive theheavenly treasure. Make the time required for the exorcisms.29

of Nyssa, as well as Cyril, used "the grace" as a synonym for baptism.This not very happy development of Christian thought shows howsalutary and indispensable to the Church was the teaching of Paul inI Cor. 12-14, on the nature of spiritual gifts.

22 Literally "intelligible paradise." The Greeks conceived of the kinds ofthings in the world that we know by the senses, as having their severalnatures and forms because the Creator shaped them in accordance withpatterns belonging to a thought-world conceived in his mind; much asa building corresponds with the blue-print, or rather with the conceptionin the architect's mind. So they contrasted the "intelligible world" ofGod's thinking, in part comprehensible to men's minds, with the"sensible world" known to us by the testimony of our senses. To Christians,the "intelligible world" is rather the age to come, or heaven.

23 The reference is to Adam naming the things in paradise. (Gen. 2:19.)24 Rom. 11:17-24. 25 John 15:1-8.26 Mark 11:13, 14, 20, 21. 27 Ps. 52:8.28 II Cor. 6:2. The "season of confession" means Lent, when baptized

sinners were doing penance, while the baptizands were parting from theirunregenerate past.

29 The exorcists were evidently in attendance early in the morning, some

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES 8l

Attend the instructions assiduously, and store up in memorythe things that shall be said. For it is not spoken just for youto listen to, but so that the things said may be imprinted byfaith upon your soul. So wipe off from it every human concern.The race is for your soul. You are leaving behind you thethings of this world, and that, for good. They are but triflesthat are being left behind, but the things that are beingbestowed by the Lord are great. Leave present things behindand set your faith on the things that are coming. . . .30 Andmay Christ himself, the great High-priest, accept your devotionof yourselves, and offer you all as an oblation, saying to hisFather "Behold I, and the children whom God hath givenme."31 And may God preserve you all as well-pleasing in hissight, to whom be glory and might, world without end. Amen.

LECTURE II

On penitence and remission of sins, and concerning the Adversary

The Lection is from Ezekiel.1

i. A dreadful matter is sin, and disorder of life is the soul'sworst sickness, which, while it severs, unobserved as it were,the sinews of the soul, puts it in danger of everlasting fire. Sinis evil of man's own choosing, springing from free will,2 as the

time before the bishop should arrive and the period of instruction began.Unless the candidates also came early, exorcism would be hurried andperfunctory. Perhaps for this reason, exorcism, at Antioch, followed theperiod of instruction. This passage again testifies to the serious importancein the preparation of the candidates which Cyril assigns to the exorcisms.

30 A repetition of earlier themes of exhortation has been here omitted.31 Heb. 2:13.

1 The Lection was Ezek. 18:20-23.2 Literally, "from an act of deliberate choice." The technical term for free

will was autexousia, "having it within oneself to determine." In the eyesof the Greek Fathers, the arch-heresy as touching the human will wasfatalism. In reaction they tended to overlook the qualified nature ofhuman free will, and to regard man as having absolute freedom torespond to the call to choose the right and reject the wrong. In a hortatoryaddress to new converts, this way of representing the matter has obviouspractical advantages. But the doctrine of autexousia was apt to wear thinunder the experience of life. In this respect, the qualified doctrine ofhuman free will that prevailed in the west, and had its great protagonist inAugustine, fared better. Nevertheless, the easterns were not withoutrecognition of the powerlessness of unconverted man to will good, norslow to glorify the part played by divine grace in man's salvation.6—C.T.


prophet clearly declares that we sin of our own free will in thepassage "I planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: howthen art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vineunto me?"3 Here is a good tree that of its own deliberate pur-pose brings forth evil fruit,4 and consequently he that plantedis not to blame. The vine, on the other hand, shall be burnedup, since it was planted to bear good fruit, and it has chosenof itself to bear evil fruit. For, says the Preacher, "God hathmade man upright: but they have sought out many inven-tions,"5 while the Apostle declares, "We are his workmanship,created unto good works."6 The Creator "created unto goodworks" because he is good, and then the creature turned of hisown set purpose to wickedness. As we said, then, sin is a dreadfulmatter, and yet not beyond cure. It is dreadful when the sinnerclings to it, but, to the man that by penitence puts it from him,it is easily cured. Imagine a man holding fire in his hand. Aslong as he grips the live coal, without question he himself isburning. But if he drops the coal, he rids himself at the sametime of the burning. Now if anyone thinks that sins do not burn,Scripture tells him "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and hisclothes not be burned?"7 For sin does burn. The sinews of thesoul are severed, and the invisible bones of the mind arebroken, and sin darkens the light that shines in the heart.

2. Someone asks, however, What is this sin you talk of? Is itsomething alive, an angel or devil?8 What is it that works sin?It is no foe that strives against you, good sir, from without, butan evil shoot that is growing out of you yourself, by your ownfree choice. "Let thine eyes look right on,"9 and no lust is

3 Jer. 2:21. 4 In allusion to Matt. 7:17, 18 and 12:33.5 Eccles. 7:29. 6 Eph. 2:10.7 Prov. 6:27. The context indicates that sin is the fire.8 This question is dictated by the existence of a tradition of thought, no

doubt Semitic in origin, which makes spirits, or living creatures, out ofman's immoral tendencies, and thinks of them as fastening, like parasite;,upon the delicate and naturally good spirit which God has placed inman. The most notable literary representation of this tradition is to bsfound in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs•, and in Hermas, Mandate,V. c. 1, sections 2 and 3, and c. 2, sections 6 and 7, and Mandate, X, c. 2,section 6 and c. 3, sections 2 and 3, where a "liberal synagogue" sourceseems to be under tribute. Cyril does not seem to regard this crudepneumatology as important enough to need refutation. It suffices to setit aside with picture-language of better tendency: the bad thing inside aman is something that the man is deliberately causing to grow out ofhimself, and it will wither to nothing the moment he so wills.

9 Prov. 4:25.


stirred. Lay no hand on other people's things, and you areclear from robbery. Keep the judgement in mind, and thenneither fornication, adultery, murder, nor any of the crimeswill prevail over you. But as soon as you forget God, then andthenceforth you begin to ponder evil things, and fulfil lawlessdeeds.

3. And yet you do not stand alone as the perpetrator of thedeed, but there is another as its wretched prompter, to wit, thedevil. So then he prompts, but he does not master by mightthose whom he does not persuade. Therefore says the Preacher,"If a spirit of the powerful rise up against thee, leave not thyplace."10 If you shut to the door and keep him at his distance,he will not harm you. But if you carelessly admit considerationof lust, it will strike its roots down into you through yourimaginations. So it will take your mind captive, and drag youdown into a pit of evils.

But maybe you are saying "I am a believer,11 and eventhough I think about it quite a lot, lust does not overcome me."Do you not know that oftentimes a root has split a rock, whensuffered to remain in it? Give no lodgement to the seed ofevil, seeing that it will break up your faith. Pull the evil thingup by the roots before it can bloom, lest, through not puttingyourself to trouble at the start, you presently have to take axesto it and busy yourself with a fire. If you begin to have eye-trouble, see to it at once, lest, by the time you seek a doctor,you have lost your sight.

4. The devil, then, is the prime author of sin and father ofall evils. It is the Lord that declared this, not I, saying "thedevil sinneth from the beginning."12 None sinned before he did.And when he sinned, it was not because he received naturallythe proneness to sin, without being able to help himself, sincethen the ostensible cause of the sin would go back to him whomade him thus. But being formed good, he turned devil of hisown free choice, and got the name from the deed. For he wasan archangel, and was afterwards called devil because heslandered;13 and from being good and a minister of God, hebecame rightly named Satan, for the name Satan means10 Eccles. 10:4.11 Cyril shows here that he is aware of the dangers of laying too much stress

upon the conviction of a changed life following upon the moral conversionwhich has brought the candidate to enrol for "enlightenment."

12 I John 3:8.13 The word "devil," like the German Teufel, is merely a taking-over,

orally, of the Greek word diabolos, "one who slanders."


adversary14 and slanderer. These teachings are not mine butthose of the inspired prophet Ezekiel. For he takes up alamentation over him, and says, "Thou sealest up the sum,full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty: thou hast been in Eden,the garden of God,"15 and a little further on, "Thou wastperfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, tilliniquity was found in thee." Quite accurately it says "wasfound in thee." For the iniquity was not introduced fromwithout, but you yourself begat the evil. And, further on,Ezekiel gives the explanation, "thine heart was lifted up,because of thy beauty: I will cast thee as profane out of themountain of God, I will cast thee to the ground." The Lordspeaks to the like effect in the Gospels, again, saying "I beheldSatan as lightning fallen from heaven."16 There you see theagreement between the Old Testament and the New.17 Nowwhen Satan fell he drew many into rebellion in his company.He excites lust in those who attend to him, and is the authorof adultery, fornication, and every evil whatsoever. Throughlistening to him our forefather Adam was ejected, so as toexchange paradise which brought forth of itself marvellousfruits18 for this thorny earth.

5. Why then, someone exclaims, we have been led astray andare lost; surely there is no being saved after that? We have14 Satan means adversary, but slanderer only by implication. Satan appears,

by that name, four times in the Old Testament, I Ghron. 21 :1 ; Job1:6 and 12; Ps. 109:6 and Zech. 3:1 and 2. The conception, in thesepassages, is of one of the courtier-spirits, in the presence of Jehovah,who has a grudge against Israel, or against righteous Israelites. He isthus primarily the adversary of Michael, the angel of the Israelite people.In Ps. 109, his accusation to Jehovah of the Psalmist's enemy is justified,in Job it is tentative, and only in Zechariah does it amount to slander.But in post-exilic Judaism the concept of a fallen archangel, who is thesource and promoter of all evil, gathered into itself the exegesis of allpossible passages in the Hebrew scriptures, and the Christian Churchinherited this tradition.

is Ezek. 28:12 and 13, where the lamentation is over the "Prince of Tyre."The later verses cited by Cyril are 15 and 17. ^ Luke 10:18.

n As will appear later, Cyril wished to have his people particularly on theirguard against Marcionism. Marcion taught that the Creator of this worldand the inspirer of the Old Testament was not God the Father revealedby Christ, but an angel whose highest conception was legal justice. Hefound the Old and New Testaments thus in essential disharmony. Cyril,therefore, takes every opportunity to arm the photizomenoi with argumentsfor the contrary belief, namely, that there is a divinely planned accordbetween the Testaments.

l* For the belief that, at the first, plants had wonderful powers that laterceased, because of the fall, see Nemesius, Section 5 (p. 239) below.


fallen, surely we cannot stand up again ? We have been blinded,surely we shall never see again ? We have been crippled, surelywe shall never again leap and walk?19 In a word, we are dead,surely there is no rising again ? Surely, good sir, I reply, he thatwakened Lazarus, dead four days and stinking,20 will he notmuch more easily raise you up who are alive? He who shedfor us his precious blood, he will rescue us from sin. Let us notdespair of ourselves, brethren, let us not abandon ourselves toa state of hopelessness. For not putting our trust in the hope ofrepentance, that is the dreadful thing,21 since he who does notat all look forward to salvation adds evil to evil recklessly. Aman, on the other hand, who hopes for cure is ready enoughto go on taking care of himself. For a robber who has no hopeof getting off runs to excess, whereas, if he hoped for pardon,the odds are that he would repent. Or put it thus; does a snakecast its skin, and we not cast our sin? Does ground full ofthistles become fertile under good tillage, and shall we thinksalvation beyond recovery ? So, then, nature is ready for salva-tion, and all we have to seek for is the will to be saved.22

10. You who have not been for very long a catechumen, doyou want proof of God's love for man? Even though thewhole people sin as one man, God's loving-kindness is notoverthrown. The people made a calf, but God cast not awayhis love for them. Men denied their God, but God did notdeny his own nature. Though they cried, "these are thy gods,O Israel,"23 as was his wont, "the God of Israel became theirSaviour"24 yet once more. Now it was not only the people thatsinned, but Aaron the high-priest also sinned. For we have thatfrom Moses when he says, "And upon Aaron came the wrathof the Lord, and I entreated for him" and (says Moses) the

!9 Cyril uses a verb artipodein not found elsewhere. Its obvious meaning isto go with sound feet, in contrast with limping or going like a cripple.

20 T h e allusion is to J o h n 11139.21 I t has been said more than once in this Lecture, that sin is a dreadful thing.

But equally, Cyril says, despair of good and of forgiveness is a dreadfulthing. Therefore the dreadfulness of sin is no argument for despair.

22 Section 6 has been omitted, and this opening sentence of Section 7 isimmediately followed by Section 10. In Section 7 Cyril is proceeding toprove the phi lanthropy of God from the Old Testament. H e appears tothink that his exposition may not be new to many in the class, and hetherefore appeals to the fact that this may not be true for all of them.This seems to indicate that the length of catechumenate before beingenrolled for baptism varied. Sections 8 and 9 deal with Noah and Rahab .

23 Ex. 32:4. 24 Cf. Isa. 63:8,


Lord pardoned him.25 Well, then, if Moses importuned theLord, begging pardon for a high-priest that had sinned, willJesus, God's only-begotten Son, shrink from importuning Godby begging pardon for you ? Now God did not stay Aaron fromcontinuing in the high-priest's office on account of his lapse,and has he stopped you from coming to salvation because youcome from paganism? After that, do you, good sir, yourselfrepent in like manner, and grace wiil not be denied you.Henceforward present your way of life unblameable, for Godis truly loving unto man: and all one's life would not sufficeto tell out his loving-kindness as it should be told, nor if allhuman tongues uttered it with one consent would they, evenso, be able to express more than a tiny part of that divinephilanthropy. It is true that we can tell out some part of whatis written in Scripture concerning God's kindness to men, butof what he has pardoned in angels we have no knowledge. Forthey have needed pardon, seeing that there is one only that iswithout sin, namely Jesus who cleanses us from sins. But I willsay no more about the angels.26

25 The citation is of Deut. 9:20. Deuteronomy, as part of the Pentateuch,was held by the Jews to have been written by Moses. The justification forthe words following the citation is to be found in v. 19.

26 Cyril's argument is that, whereas revelation abundantly shows forth theloving-kindness of God in his dealings with men, that loving-kindness ismanifest on a vaster scale in (what has not been the literal subject ofrevelation, unless through an allegorical or mystical exegesis of Scripture)his dealings with the incorporeal rational creatures. If we ask how Cyrilknows of such a field of knowledge, the answer is that he has taken it fromOrigen. But already, by Cyril's episcopate, Origen's name was breathedupon, and so, having used the notion of divine long-suffering towardsangels to provide an argument a fortiori, Cyril refuses to pursue furtherthe theme of angelic need of forgiveness. Origen, On First Principles, Bk. IV,c. iv, Section 4, teaches that the soul of Jesus is the only sinless creature,while the whole work elaborates the doctrine that the impartiality of Godrequires that he made all rational creatures by nature equal. The differ-ences now manifest in the universe of visible and invisible are thereforedue to varied use of creaturely free will. Origen saw the whole world-process as redemptive. Wrong choice always and everywhere entails afall in status, while repentance always brings forgiveness and grace ofrecovery. How Origen represented this agelong drama of redemption isprobably as much revealed as parodied in Section 19 of Jerome's Letterto Pammachius against Cyril's successor John in the see of Jerusalem (thisletter is referred to also as Against John). John took Cyril as his standardof orthodoxy, and Jerome detected in John the streak of Origenism whichremained in the doctrinal tradition of Jerusalem from Cyril. Jerome saysthat in this Origenistic scheme every soul was originally created arch-angelic, but has had a prenatal history that can be likened to the fate of


11. If you like, however, I will give you further examplesrelating to our condition. Come then to the blessed David, andtake him for your example of repentance. Great as he was, hesuffered a fall. It was in the afternoon, after his siesta that hetook a turn on the housetop, and saw by chance what stirredhis human passion. He fulfilled the sinful deed, but his nobility,when it came to confessing the lapse, had not perished withthe doing of the deed. Nathan the prophet came, swift toconvict, but a healer for his wound, saying "The Lord iswroth, and thou hast sinned."27 So spake a simple subject tohis reigning sovereign. But David, though king and robed inpurple, did not take it amiss, for he had regard not to the rankof the speaker but to the majesty of him who sent him. He wasnot puffed up by the fact that guardsmen were drawn up allaround him, for the angelic host of the Lord came to his mind,and he was in terror "as seeing him who is invisible."28 So heanswered and said to the man that came to him, or rather, in hisperson, to the God whose messenger he was, "I have sinnedagainst the Lord."29 You see this royal humility and themaking of confession. Surely no one had been convicting him,nor were there many who knew what he had done. Swiftly thedeed was done and straightway the prophet appeared asaccuser.30 Lo! the sinner confesses his wicked deed, and as it

a Field Marshal who suffers successive reductions in rank until he hasarrived at that of simple private. This last condition represents that ofa human soul, now on probation in the flesh; on probation, that is,whether it will begin thereby its recovery of rank, or desert to the traitors,i.e., the devils in deliberate rebellion against their God and Maker.Jerome rightly saw that a part of Origen's scheme could not logically beheld without accepting the whole, but the Greek Fathers in general keptaway from Origenism by supposing that an archangelic being could notmake a partial or blundering decision, but must, in the first timelessmoment of existence, have decided, immutably, either for or against God.So they assumed a pure dualism, of sinless angels, and unsaveable devils.Nevertheless, through such persons as Basil the Great, much dilutedOrigenism seeped into orthodoxy; as that we must not worship the goodangels because they are not divinely omniscient, but are being sanctifiedby God, just as are the saints. While the doctrine of the sinlessness ofChrist no doubt rested, for Cyril, most firmly on the literal meaning ofsuch texts as John 8:46; 16:8-10, and Heb. 4:15, independently of anytheory of the soul of Christ, it was no doubt because he was resting onOrigen that Cyril could say so peremptorily that "Jesus alone is withoutsin." 27 II Sam. 12:7-12 in summary.

28 Heb. 11:27. 29 II Samuel 12:13.3° In fact almost a year passed between the adultery and the king's repen-

tance. But the sinful deed was not fulfilled till Uriah had been done todeath, and the king's knowledge of his death might be almost simultaneous


was full and frank confession, he had the swiftest healing. Forthe prophet Nathan first threatened him and then said forth-with, "And the Lord hath put away thy sin." And see howquickly loving-kindness changes the face of God! except thathe first declares, "Thou hast given great occasion to the enemiesof the Lord to blaspheme"31 as though he said "thou hast manythat are thy foes because of thy righteousness, from whomnevertheless, thou wast kept safe by thine upright living. Butas thou hast thrown away this best of armours, thou hast now,standing ready to strike, these foes that are risen up againsth "

12. So then the prophet comforted David as we have seen,but that blessed man, though he received most gladly theassurance, "The Lord hath put away thy sin," did not, kingas he was, draw back from penitence. Indeed he put on sack-cloth in place of his purple robe, and the king sat in ashes onthe bare earth instead of on his gilded throne. And in ashes hedid not merely sit, but took them for eating, as he himself says,"I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drinkwith weeping."33 His lustful eye he wasted away with tears;as he says, "Every night wash I my bed and water my couchwith my tears."34 And when his courtiers exhorted him to takebread, he would not, but prolonged his fast for seven wholedays. Now if a king was wont to make confession after thismanner, ought not you, as a private person, to make yourconfession ? Again, after Absalom's rebellion, when David wasin flight, with many a choice of road before him, he chose tomake his escape by the Mount of Olives, as good as invokingin his own mind the Deliverer who should from thence ascendinto the heavens. And when Shimei cursed him bitterly he said,Let him be. For he knew that forgiveness is for those whoforgive.35 What notion have you as to Nebuchadnosor? Haveyou not heard from Scripture that he was bloodthirsty andsavage with the disposition of a man-eating lion?36

with the birth of the child of guilt. Cyril is thus justified in thinking thearrival of Nathan prompt, upon the completion of the shameful episode,and in measuring, by this promptness of the messenger, the instant readi-ness of God to rescue the sinner from his sin. 3i l,c.9 v. 14.

32 Cyril thus reproduces the Origenistic doctrine that , in the divine order,sin always makes recovery more difficult.

33 Ps. 102:9. 34 p s , 6:6.35 The incident is in II Samuel 15:30 ff. to 16:10.36 Sections 12-16 inclusive, treating of the examples of Solomon, Ahab ,

Jereboam, Manasses, Hezekiah and Ananias, have been omitted. This


19. Why then? When Nebuchadnosor had behaved in thiskind of way and then made confession, God granted him bothpardon and his kingdom. And will he not give you remissionof your sins, if you repent, and the kingdom of heaven, if yourconversation accords therewith ? For the Lord is full of loving-kindness and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Therefore letnone of you despair of his own salvation. Peter, the highest andfirst of the apostles, thrice denied the Lord, all because of aserving-maid, but when he had come to repent of it, he weptbitterly. Now his weeping testifies the heartiness of his repen-tance. And on that account he not only received forgivenessfor his denial but was actually allowed to retain his apostolicdignity.37

20. As, then, brethren, you have many examples of peoplewho have sinned and then repented and been saved, do youalso make confession38 unto the Lord with all your heart, so asto receive pardon of all your sins of the time past and beaccounted worthy of the heavenly gift and inherit the heavenlykingdom with all the saints in Christ Jesus, to whom be gloryworld without end. Amen.

L E C T U R E I I I

On baptism

The Lection is from the Epistle to the Romans.1

1. "Ye heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad"2 becausesentence is the opening of Section 17. Sections 17 and 18 develop theexample of Nebuchadnosor to the same purpose, and the Lecture endswith Sections 19 and 20. There is a sameness of argument that justifiescurtailment, but Cyril's treatment is never without force and freshness.The reader can find the omitted sections in Dean Church's or Dr Giffard'stranslation.

3 7 It is to be noted how Cyril harps upon the fact that his examples were notonly forgiven, but allowed to keep their status which they had deservedto lose. It suggests that he was trying to break down the fear of the lossof respectability which might deter candidates from a really cleansingconfession. And this would be natural where the disclosure was madebefore others.

38 Cyril's use of the word confession (exomologesis) is wider than a meredisclosure of past sins. In Section 16 for example it covers the Song of theThree Children, which is no personal confession of sin, but an appeal toGod to vindicate Israel in spite of the shortcomings of the people. It isalso a profession of trust in God. And this is no doubt part of whatCyril envisaged when he exhorted the candidates to "make confessionunto the Lord."

1 The Lection was Rom. 6:3-14. 2 ps. g6:11.


of those who are going to be "sprinkled with hyssop,"3 and"purged with (invisible) hyssop"4 and the power of him whoduring his passion drank from hyssop and a reed.5 Yes, let thepowers of heaven rejoice and let those souls get themselvesready, that are about to be wed to their spiritual Bridegroom.For lo! "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make readythe way of the Lord."6 For this wedding is no light matter, northe usual and undiscriminating union of bodies, but is theelection by faith made by "the Spirit that searcheth all things."7

For the espousals and marriage-contracts of this world are notinvariably well-judged, but where there is wealth or beautythere the suitor is quick to give his hand. But in this wedding, itis not physical beauty, but the blameless conscience of the soul,that engages. Here it is not Mammon, which he condemned,but the soul's wealth of piety, that the Bridegroom desires.8

3. That to which you draw near is truly of great import, mybrethren, and you must approach it with careful attention.Each one of you is to be presented before God in the presenceof myriad hosts of angels. The Holy Spirit is going to seal yoursouls. You are about to be enrolled as soldiers of the greatKing.9 So then get ready, be prepared, not in the sense ofputting on the whitest of literal robes10 but the devotion of asoul with conscience unburdened. Do not think of the font asfilled with ordinary water, but think rather of the spiritual

3 Num. 19:18; Heb. 9:19. Hyssop as sprinkler of water for purifying theunclean.

4 Ps. 51:7. The fifty-first psalm is recognized by Cyril to be a psalm ofinward and spiritual relations with God, so that literal hyssop cannot bemeant.

5 There is a combined allusion here to Mark 15:36 and John 19:29.^ Isa. 40:3 is rather incongruously brought into a theme based on the

Song of Songs.7 I Cor. 2:10.8 The last four words must be supplied. The Mammon reference is to Luke

16:13; Matt. 6:24. Section 2 is omitted, as of less interest.9 It is a remarkable tribute to the success of Constantine in bringing the

military profession under Christian sanctions that, by the date of theselectures, a bishop could appeal to enrolment in the imperial armies asa pleasing simile for Christian people for their own religious serviceunder Christ. By the year of the transcribed lectures the arms of Constan-tius were beginning at last to be crowned with success, and the people ofPalestine, long conscious of the danger from the Persians, saw in hisvictories a proof of the blessing of heaven.

10 For their white baptismal robes the candidates were no doubt alreadymaking preparation, and the more this bulked in their minds, the betterCyril's opportunity to enforce the symbolism.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES gi

grace that is given with the water. For just as the sacrifices onpagan altars are, in themselves, indifferent matter and yet havebecome defiled by reason of the invocation made over them tothe idols, so, but in the opposite sense, the ordinary water inthe font acquires sanctifying power when it receives the invo-cation of the Holy Spirit of Christ and the Father.

4. Whereas man is a twofold being composed of soul andbody, so is the means of his cleansing twofold, which is incor-poreal for his incorporeal part, and corporeal for the cleansingof his body.11 The water washes the body and the Spirit sealsthe soul, so that, being (by the Spirit) "sprinkled in heart, andwashed in body with pure water, we may draw near to God."12

Therefore when you are about to go down into the water, donot look upon it as mere water, but look for its saving power bythe operation of the Holy Spirit,13 for you cannot be initiatedbut by means of both the Spirit and the water. And this is noassertion of mine, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ, in whosepower the matter lies, that says "except a man be born again"first, and presently adds "of water and of the Spirit, he cannotenter into the kingdom of God."14 For neither does onebaptized with water, but not accounted worthy of the Spirit,receive the grace whole and entire, nor shall anyone, howevervirtuous his conduct be, who does not receive the Spirit-seal bymeans of water, enter into the kingdom of heaven. That is abold saying, but it is not mine, for Jesus uttered it. But I willmake bold to prove to you its truth, out of Holy Scripture.15

Cornelius was a just man, and held worthy to see angels invision. By his prayers and alms he had, as it were, erected hisgood memorial16 before God in heaven. Then came Peter and

n Cyril seems to think of spiritual regeneration in baptism as the work ofthe Spirit, coming to the baptized after the manner of the descent uponChrist at his baptism. The work mediated by the water, and affectingthe body of the baptized, he apparently connects with the preparationof the resurrection body for eternal life. What is meant here surpassestherefore what appears to be said, viz. that it is a mere present cleansingby water. 12 Heb. 10:22.

J3 As body and soul in man cannot be separated, so Cyril's picture of atwofold action of water and spirit in baptism is not a picture of two actions,independently, one by the Spirit and one by water. The water does whatit does because the Spirit gives it the power, while the Spirit uses thewater to prepare the bodies of the regenerate for life after death.

14 First John 3:3 and then 3:5. 15 Acts 10:1-8 and 34-48.16 Acts 10:4 makes the angel use pictorial language, in representing the

good deeds of Cornelius as ascending to heaven, and there presentingan object that made God mindful of him. Cyril makes the exegesis still


the Spirit was poured forth upon those who believed, and theyspoke with other tongues and prophesied. Yet the Scripturerelates that after they had received the grace of the Spirit,Peter commanded them to be baptized in the Name of JesusChrist, to the end that, whereas their souls had been regeneratedthrough their believing, their bodies should share in this gracethrough the (sacramental) water.

5. Now if anyone is eager to learn why baptismal grace isgiven by means of water, and not by any other of the elements,he will find the answer if he takes up the Scriptures. For wateris a great subject and the fairest of the four visible elements ofwhich the world is made.17 Heaven is the angels' home, yetheavens were made from waters. Earth is man's place, and theearth arose from waters, and before the making of all that thesix days of creation brought forth, "the Spirit of God movedupon the face of the waters."18 As water was the foundation ofthe world, so Jordan was the foundation of the Gospel.19 Israelwas set free from Pharaoh by means of the sea, and the worldwas freed from sins "with the washing of water by the (divine)word."20

more sharply pictorial by making the object a pillar erected in God'ssight with, presumably, the name of Cornelius engraved upon it.

!? Of the four elements, water is easily the most often mentioned in Scripture,fire coming second, but much behind, while the elements earth and airare, by comparison, little in view. The scriptural associations of waterare the most poetical and pleasing. Thus Cyril's encomium on water isuniformly scriptural.

!8 Gen 1:2. The preceding sentences are commentary on Gen. 1:1-10. Thefirst account of creation in Gen. assumes water to have been the primalmatter. God's second creative word, presumably working upon water assubstrate, evoked a firmament entirely surrounded by waters, withinwhich the universe of heaven and earth took form. Below, earth rose outof the waters to form a lower firmament, while, above, a more mysteriousdome enclosed heaven. In this way Cyril can assert that the dwellingplaces of angels and men owed their origin to water.

w Arche, here, would seem to mean "foundation" or "pre-requisite," ratherthan beginning. Cyril was no doubt aware of Greek speculation thatwould make water the primal element. But he keeps strictly to the termsof scripture. There was water, and the Spirit of God at work, before therewas any universe of visible and invisible. This is to invest water witha mysterious and venerable character very suited to his purpose.

20 Eph. 5:26, where it is the Church that is delivered by Christ's washing.But Cyril no doubt held the common patristic view that the world cameinto existence for the sake of the Church, as Jews had supposed that itwas for the sake of Israel. The Jews were wrong, in that the election wasout of all peoples, but Christians are right, Cyril would say, because thecatholic Church is God's end in creation.


Where there is a covenant between parties, water comes intoit.21 It was after the Flood that a covenant was made with Noah.The covenant with Israel made from Mount Sinai was, younotice, implemented "with water, and scarlet wool, andhyssop."22 Elijah was taken up to heaven, but water came intoit, for he made the crossing of Jordan first, and after that thechariot took him on high.23 The high-priest first washes andthen offers the incense, for Aaron first washed with water andafter that was invested as high-priest.24 How indeed could heproperly intercede for others if he had not first been cleansedwith water? And the basin placed within the tabernacle wasthere as a symbol of baptism.25

6. Baptism is the ending of the old covenant and thebeginning of the new. For the inauguration of the new wasJohn, than whom there was none greater "among them thatare born of women," the crown indeed of the prophets. "Forall the prophets and the law prophesied until John."26 Butof the Gospel dispensation he was the firstfruits, for (we read)"the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" and after somewords "John did baptize in the wilderness."27 I grant you thatElijah the Tishbite was taken up to heaven: yet he was notgreater than John. Enoch was translated but was not greaterthan John. Moses was the greatest of lawgivers and all theprophets were admirable, but they were not greater than John.I dare not compare prophet with prophet, but it was theirMaster and ours that declared "among those that are born ofwomen, there hath not risen a greater than John." Not "bornof virgins" observe! but "born of women." We are comparinga head-servant with his fellow-servants, not the Son with thehousehold, for his pre-eminence and grace are incomparable.Of this grace, do you observe what manner of man God choseto be the inaugurator ? One who forsook possessions and lovedsolitude, but no misanthrope. He fed on locusts to make hissoul grow wings. Sated with honey, the words he spoke weresweeter than honey and of more profit. Clothed in a garmentof camel's hair, he exemplified in his own person the asceticlife.28 While he was yet cradled in his mother's womb, he was21 i.e., wherever in Scripture such a subject occurs.22 Heb. 9:19. 23 II Kings 2:8-11. ™ Ex. 29:4.25 Ex. 40:30-32. 26 Matt. 11:11-13. 27 Mark 1:1, 4.28 Already Jerusalem was beginning to be populated with persons who

had forsaken the world to live devoted to religion. The transcribers ofthese Lectures were probably such. So Cyril's lecture class knew andrespected the ascetic life.


hallowed by the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah also was sanctified beforehe came forth out of his mother's womb,29 but did not thenprophesy. Only John "leaped in his mother's womb for joy"30

and in the Spirit recognized his Master, when his fleshly eyeswere blind. For since the grace of baptism was so great, itsminister too must needs be great.

7. He, then, began to baptize in Jordan, and "all Jerusalemwent out to him,"31 taking advantage of the firstfruits ofbaptisms, for to Jerusalem belongs the pre-eminence in all goodthings. But note, citizens of Jerusalem, that those who "wentout" were baptized of him, confessing their sins. First theyshowed their wounds, then he applied the words of healing,32

and to those that believed he gave redemption from "un-quenchable fire."33 And if you need persuasion of this, thatJohn's baptism redeems from the threat of fire, hear his words"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from thewrath to come?"34 But since you have fled, leave off being aviper, and whereas you were once the offspring of a viper,slough off, said he, the skin of your former sinful life. For everysnake puts off its signs of age by pushing through some narrowplace, and gets rid of its old apparel by squeezing it off.Thenceforth it is young again in body. So "enter ye in at thestraight and narrow gate,"35 squeeze yourself through by fasting,break yourself away from perishing, "put off'the old man withhis deeds,"36 and say, with the Song of Songs, "I have put offmy coat; how shall I put it on?"37

But it might be that someone among you is not sincere, "aman-pleaser,"38 feigning piety but not believing from the heart,imitating Simon Magus in hypocrisy,39 not drawing near forthe sake of participating in the grace, but with idle curiosityto see what is given. Let such a person hear the words of John,"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees, there-29 Jer. 1:5, 6. 30 Luke 1144. 3i Matt. 3:5.32 latreuma seems to be found only in figurative use, though its literal sense

is simply "a remedy." 33 Matt. 3:12.34 Matt. 3:7. The present tense "redeems" seems to show that Cyril thought

the power of rescuing souls from damnation was inherent in John'sbaptism, as fore-empowered by the Gospel dispensation.

35 A combining of Matt. 7:13 and 14.36 Combining Eph. 4:22 with Colossians 3 :9.37 S. of Sol. 5:3. 38 Eph. 6:6.39 Acts 8. But with the high standard of scriptural knowledge which Cyril

everywhere assumes in his audience, we may suppose that w . 21-24(Peter's rebuke and Simon's repentance) would be, in substance, in-ferred from this mere general allusion.


fore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewndown, and cast into the fire."40 The Judge cannot be hood-winked, so put away hypocrisy.41

10. Unless a man receive baptism, he has not salvation,excepting only martyrs, who receive the kingdom though theyhave not entered the font.42 For when the Saviour was re-deeming the universe by means of his cross and his side waspierced, "forthwith came there out blood and water/'43 toshow that in times of peace men should be baptized in water,and in times of persecution in their own blood. For the Saviourpurposely spoke of martyrdom as baptism when he said "Canye drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with thebaptism that I am baptized with?"44 Moreover, martyrs maketheir profession of faith, "being made a spectacle to the world,and to angels, and to men."45 In a short while, you too willmake your profession of faith, but we have not yet reached thetime for you to hear about that.46

11. Jesus, in being himself baptized, hallowed baptism. Ifthe Son of God was baptized, who any longer can claim to begodly and yet think lightly of baptism? He was not baptizedthat he might receive pardon for his sins, for he knew no sin;but being without sin he was baptized to impart divine graceand dignity to those who are baptized. For just "as the childrenare partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise tookpart"47 with them, so that we, by partaking in his presenceafter the flesh, may also become partakers of his divine grace.Jesus was baptized for that reason further also, that besidessalvation, and through our partaking with him, we may receivethe dignity.48 The dragon in the waters,49 according to Job,

40 Matt. 3:10. 4i Sections 8 and 9 are, for brevity, omitted.42 This belief is based on Matt. 10:32 and 39 and is testified by Tertullian,

On Baptism, xvi and following.43 John 19:34. 44 Mark 10:38. 45 I Cor. 4:9.46 Cyril proposes to reach the imparting of the creed only two lectures

later, interposing one lecture in which he gives an epitome of the headsof the Faith. (An epitome, it appears, of his own construction.) It wastherefore simply to keep up interest and expectation that he inserted thisremark at this point. 47 Heb. 2:14.

48 Or "prerogative," viz., of "treading upon serpents and scorpions."Cyril will now say that the waters were a lurking-place for powers ofevil (thus reproducing a widespread and ancient theme of Semiticdemonology) until Christ neutralized and reversed their dominion by hisbaptism. Henceforth baptism makes the recipients secure against thisambushed foe, in the might of Christ's once-for-all victory communicatedby the water itself to the baptized. 49 Behemoth. Job 40:15-24.


"trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth."50 When,then, Jesus must break "the heads of the dragons,"51 he wentdown and bound the mighty one in the waters, so that we mightreceive the "power to tread upon serpents and scorpions."52

The Beast was no ordinary monster, but a dread one. "No shipof fishers could bear one scale of his tail: before him randestruction,"53 that laid waste all it met. But life ran to meethim, to muzzle death henceforth, that all we, the saved, maycry, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thyvictory?"54 Baptism destroys the sting of death.

12. For you descend into the water laden with your sins.But the invocation of the grace causes your soul to receive theseal, and after that it does not let you be swallowed up by thedread dragon. You go down "dead indeed in sin,"55 and youcome up "alive unto" righteousness "for if thou wert plantedtogether in the likeness of the Saviour's death, thou shalt becounted worthy of his resurrection also."56 For as Jesus diedin taking away the sins of the world, that, by doing sin to death,he might rise in righteousness, so, too, when you go down intothe water and are, in a fashion, entombed in the water as hewas in the rock, you may rise again to "walk in newness oflife."5?

13. Next, when you have received the grace (of baptism),there will be given you thereafter the power to wrestle againstthe adverse powers. For just as Jesus, after his baptism enduredforty days temptation (and that not because he could not sur-mount it before baptism, but because he willed to accomplishall things in order and sequence), so you, who, prior to baptism,dare not engage the adversaries in strife, when you receive thegrace (of baptism) and thenceforth take courage, may then fightwith the arms of righteousness, and, if you will, preach thegospel.

14. Jesus Christ was Son of God, but he did not preach thegospel till he had been baptized. Now if the Master himselfpursued his course in regular order, ought we his servants toventure before the proper time? From that moment when "theHoly Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove uponso The preferable MS reading is "into his eye," due to the first half of v. 24,

"He taketh it with his eyes."51 Ps. 74:14, but our text has "dragon" in the singular.52 Luke 10:19.53 Job 40:26 in the Septuagint, corresponding with 41:7 in the A.V.54 I Cor. 15:55. 55 Rom. 6:11 in reminiscence.56 Rom. 6:2, 5. 57 Rom. 6:4.


him"58 "began Jesus to preach."59 This was not so that Jesusshould, for the first time, behold the Spirit, for he knew himbefore coming to earth in the body, but that John the Baptistshould behold it. For said John, as I would have you note,"I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water,the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spiritdescending, and remaining upon him, the same is he."60 Andif you have a sincere devotion, the Holy Spirit will descendalso upon you, and the Father's voice will sound forth fromon high: not to say "This is my Son," but to say "This is nowbecome my son." "Is my Son" was said over him only, since"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God."61 To him applies the "is," since he isalways Son of God, but to you applies the phrase "is nowbecome," since you have not natural sonship, but receive thestatus of son by adoption. The Word is Son eternally. Youreceive the grace of sonship progressively. Therefore, to bemade son of God, "an heir of God, and joint heir with Christ,"make ready the soul's vessel.62

16. "Be of good courage, Jerusalem, the Lord will take awayall thine iniquities. The Lord shall wash away the filth of hissons and daughters, by the spirit of judgement and by the spiritof burning: he shall sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shallbe cleansed from all your sin."63 Angels will circle round you,crying "Who is this that cometh up in white apparel, leaningon her near of kin?"64 For the soul that used to be but servanthas now claimed the Master himself for her kinsman, andhe will accept her sincere intention and cry to her, "Beholdthou art fair, my love: behold thou art fair; thy teeth are asflocks of shorn sheep," because she has made her professionwith a good conscience, and "each of them bearing twins"because of the twofold grace (I mean that grace completed of

58 Luke 3:22- 59 Matt. 4:17. 60 John 1133.61 John 1:1.62 Rom. 8:17. The sentence is the first of Section 15, the rest being omitted.63 Cyril here strings together Zeph. 3, pa r t s of w . 14 and 15, Isa. 4 :4 ,

and the first half of Ezek. 36:25, and substitutes "Jerusalem" for"daughter of Jerusalem," at the beginning. T h e result no doubt wasthat he made a mixed company of Palestinian men and women, candi-dates for baptism in the middle of the fourth Christian century, feel thatthey and not the Jews were the true heirs of the Old Testament, whereinwas already set out, prophetically, the way of preparation for the newerrite.

64 The first half of S. of Soi. 8:5 in the Septuagint.7—c.j.


water and the Spirit, or preached in the old covenant and thenew).65

Now may you all persevere through this fast, rememberwhat has been said, bear the fruit of good works, be presentedblameless to the spiritual Bridegroom, and receive from Godthe remission of your sins in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom bethe glory, world without end. Amen,

L E C T U R E IV

On the {ten) dogmas1

The Lection is from the Epistle to the Colossians.2

i. Evil apes respectability, and tares do their best to looklike wheat, but however close a similarity to wheat they havein appearance their taste completely undeceives the discerning.Even the devil "transformeth himself into an angel of light,"3

not meaning to ascend again to his former place (for he pos-sesses a heart as hard as an anvil and has no intention ofrepenting ever)4, but to snare those who are living the angeliclife in blinding darkness, and infest them with a condition offaithlessness. There are many wolves going about "in sheep'sclothing,"5 but though they wear the coats of sheep, theypossess, none the less, both talons and teeth. They wrap them-selves in the gentle creature's hide and with this disguisedeceive the innocent only to inject with their teeth the deadlypoison of their irreligion. We therefore need the grace of God,a sober mind, and watchful eyes, so as not to eat tares forwheat and come to harm for not knowing better; so as not tomistake the wolf for a sheep and be ravaged; and so as not totake the death-dealing devil for a good angel, and be devoured.For Scripture says, "he goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking

65 S. of Sol. 4, first half each of vv. i and 2. Cyril's allegorical interpretationof "bearing twins" is in the style of Origen, of whom there survives thesaying that it may refer to the two senses of Scripture, literal and mystical.It is probable that Cyril was a reader of Origen's Commentaries, but heis sparing in his use of Origen's favourite exegetical methods.

1 The number of headings varies from ten to fourteen in the MSS.2 The Lection was Col. 2:8-end. 3 II Cor. 11:14.4 The sentence in brackets may be an addition, to defend Cyril from the

suspicion of Origenism, as the speculation that the devil would at lastbe saved was regarded as one of Origen's prime errors.

5 Matt. 7:15.


whom he may devour."6 That is why the Church admonishes.That is why we hold these classes. That is the reason for thesereadings of Scripture.

2. The way of godliness consists of these two parts, piousdogmas and good works. Neither are the dogmas acceptableto God without good works, nor does God accept worksaccomplished otherwise than as linked with pious dogmas.What good is it to a man shamefully committing fornicationto have an excellent knowledge of theology ? Again, what goodis it to a man to exercise the greatest self-discipline, if he uttersgodless blasphemy? To have learned the dogmas is thereforea very great possession, and after that our need is sobriety ofsoul, since there are many that would "spoil us through philo-sophy and vain deceit."7 Now the Greeks plunder you withtheir smooth tongues, "for honey distils from the lips of astrange woman,"8 while the circumcision lead you astray bymeans of the Holy Scriptures, which they wrest vilely, if yougo to them. They study Scripture from childhood to old age,only to end their days in gross ignorance.

The sectaries "by good words and fair speeches deceive thehearts of the simple"9 coating over their poison-pills of godlessdoctrines with the honey of the Name of Christ. Now of allthese the Lord declares "Beware lest any deceive you."10 Andthat is why there is this teaching of the faith and these explana-tions of it.

3. But before I commit to you this faith I think it will begood now to recapitulate in brief its indispensable dogmas,lest the great number of things to be said and the interveningspace of the whole forty daysl * should result in the less cleveramong you forgetting. But if we have now unobtrusivelyimplanted in your minds the headings, it will mean that they6 1 Peter 5:8. 7 Col. 2:8.8 Prov. 5:3. "The Greeks" means adherents of the Classical paganism. They

had "smooth tongues" as deprecating the strictness of Christianity.9 Rom. 16:18 reading, however, euglottias for eulogias.

10 Matt. 24:4.n While the oldest MSS have "the whole forty days," others read "the

whole Sacred Forty Days," i.e., Lent. The later reading no doubt rightlyinterprets the earlier. But we need not suppose Cyril to mean that, onthe day of this lecture, the whole of Lent, or practically the whole ofLent, was still to come. If that were his meaning, we should have tocrowd the fourth lecture into the first week. But this consequence doesnot follow, if, as is most probable, he simply means that they were hearinglectures over the whole length of Lent, from the Procatechesis on, andmust try to remember everything.

IOO CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

do not slip your memory when they are, later on, worked upinto fuller form.12 And let the more advanced of the presentcompany bear with this arrangement, "having their senses nowexercised to discern both good and evil"13 and yet having tolisten to instruction fitter for children, and to a course of spoon-feeding: just so that, at one and the same time, those that haveneed of the instruction will benefit, while those who know it allalready may have the memory refreshed of things the knowledgeof which they gained previously.14

4. Of God. Let there, then, be laid as first foundation in yoursouls the dogma concerning God, that God is one alone,unbegotten, without beginning, unchanging and unchangeable,neither looking to any other as the author of his being, nor toany other to succeed to his life, of which life he had no beginningin time, nor will it ever come to an end: then that he is goodand just, so that if ever you hear a heretic say that there is ajust God and also a good God and they are different,15 be12 The suggestion which Cyril seems to make, that he is about to epitomize

the remainder of the course, is not borne out by the facts. The courserather reflects the structure of the Jerusalem baptismal creed, which hecommunicates to the photizomenoi in the fifth lecture. And it is the creed,rather than the epitome of dogmas in Lecture iv, that provides the classwith headings that should prevent their being befogged in the fullertreatment of the subjects, in subsequent lectures. The truth seems to be,therefore, that Cyril interposed this epitome of his own, before deliveringthe creed, so as not to be too closely confined by the structure of the creed.He is able, in his epitome, to treat of soul, body, and Scripture, in a wayto which the structure of the creed does not lend itself. The idea of suchan epitome, arranged under the major heads of dogma, had its classicalexpression in the work of Origen, On First Principles, which Cyril is likelyto have known.

!3 Heb. 5:14. The preceding verse gives the simile with which the sentenceconcludes.

n This apology to the more learned photizomenoi implies, in them, so higha standard of knowledge and ability, that we must assume Jerusalem tohave become something of a school of Christian learning, after the formerpattern of the school at Alexandria.

15 The heresy here referred to is that of Marcion, a shipmaster from Pontus,who joined the Church in Rome about A.D. 135. Brought up to thePauline antithesis between Law and Gospel, he was influenced by aSyrian Gnostic, Cerdo, in Rome, to see the whole Old Testament as theantithesis of the Gospel, and so to distinguish between the God whocreated this world and gave the Law, and the Father revealed by Christ.He supposed the Catholic Church to have been deceived by the god ofthis world into receiving the Old Testament as scripture, and contam-inating the Gospel with the principles of the Law. Marcion founded arival Church claiming to be catholic, which had great success in theorient, and was a formidable foe in the eyes of Cyril.


straightway on your guard as you recognize the poison-pill ofheresy. For some have dared, in their godless teaching to dividethe one God.16 And some have distinguished the maker andmaster of the soul from the creator of our bodies, a doctrine asimpious as it is stupid. For how should a man that is one beservant of masters that are two ? as the Lord says in the gospel,"No man can serve two masters."17 So there is only one God,the maker of both souls and bodies. There is one creator ofheaven and earth, who made the angels and archangels. He isindeed creator of plurality, but of one only was he Father18

before all ages, that is of his only and sole-begotten Son, ourLord Jesus Christ, through whom also he made all things, bothvisible and invisible.

5. Now this Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not circum-scribed to some place, nor is there heaven beyond him, but"the heavens are the work of his fingers,"19 and "the wholeearth is holden in the hollow of his hand."20 He is in everythingand yet nothing contains him. Do not imagine that God issmaller than the sun, or that he is as large as the sun. For, ashe made the sun, he must have been already incomparablygreater than the sun, and more resplendent with light. Heknows what is to come, and nothing equals him in power. Heknows everything, and does as he wills. He is not subject to anylaw of sequence, or genesis, or fortune, or fate. He is perfect byevery measure. He possesses unchangeably every kind of virtue,never less and never more, but ever in the same degree and

!6 While this might apply to any of the dualistic Gnostics, it isprobably meant specially to cover the Manichaean religion, foundedby the Persian subject Mani, on the lines of the old Iranian irreducibledualism of light and darkness, good and evil. Mani came in contactwith diffused Christian ideas, of which he adopted so much that hisreligion was able, after his death at the hands of the Persian king inA.D. 276, to propagate itself inside the Roman empire as if it were anesoteric Christian heresy, Manichaean salvation was based upon theescape of soul (conceived as a quantitative soulstuff) from bondage tomatter.

17 Matt. 6:24. This disproof of dualism seems to be CyriPs own. For thisstrong Christian conviction of man's unity of soul and body, see the workof Nemesius, following.

is The problem of the One and the Many preoccupied Greek philosophythroughout the ages. The Alexandrine Christian teachers Clement andOrigen essayed to solve it by the notion of a Logos or Word of God whois one, as his Father is one, while able to enter relation with the pluralityof which he is Creator. Cyril, in his present outline, is their heir.

19 Ps. 8:3.20 Isa. 40:12.


manner. He has prepared chastisement for sinners, and crownsfor the righteous.21

6. See, then, that many have gone astray from the one Godin different ways, some deifying the sun, and so remainingatheist every night from set of sun, and others the moon, soas to have no god by day. Others have deified this or thatportion of the world. Others have deified the arts, others, thingsto eat, others different pleasures. Men mad after women haveset up on high their idol, a nude woman, calling it Venus, andby means of the visible emblem, have worshipped lust. Othersfascinated by the gleam of gold have deified it and other formsof matter.22 But if anyone first lays the foundation in his heartof the doctrine of the monarchy of God, and puts his trusttherein, he cuts out at one stroke every seduction by the evilsof idolatry and of heretical error. Do you, then, by means ofthe faith, lay in your soul as first foundation, this, the firstdogma of true religion.

7. Of Christ. Believe also in the Son of God, who is one andsole, our Lord Jesus Christ, God begotten from God, life gottenfrom life, light gendered from light, like in all things to himthat begat him:23 who did not receive his being in time butwas begotten of the Father before all ages in a manner eternaland incomprehensible. He is God's wisdom and power and hisrighteousness existing hypostatically.24 He is enthroned at God'sright hand from before all ages. For he was not, as some havesupposed, crowned after his passion, as though God seated himat his right hand for his endurance of the cross,25 but has royaldignity from that source whence he has his being, to wit, inbeing eternally begotten from the Father, and shares the

21 After delighting the intellectual among the photizomenoi with his Platon-isms, he conies back to the thought of moral decision, which concerns all.

22 The anti-pagan polemic here epitomized is given in extenso in Arnobius,Against the pagans.

23 This is the phrase upon which all those eastern theologians commonlycalled Semi-Arians attempted to base orthodoxy, rather than on theconsubstantiality-formula of Nicaea. Cyril, after remaining in somedegree of association with this group through middle life, ended bybecoming a prominent Neo-Nicene.

24 That is, the Son, in perfectly fulfilling the Father's will, became, in hisown Person, the righteousness of God, existing not as a quality or at-tribute of God, but hypostatically, to be contemplated, loved, andaccepted by the Father.

25 Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, was condemned in A.D. 268 asteaching that Jesus was a man uniquely indwelt by the divine Wisdom,and rewarded for obedience by exaltation.


Father's throne, being God, and, as we said, being the wisdomand power of God. He reigns together with the Father, andthrough the Father is creator of all things. He falls in nothingshort of the majesty of Godhead and knows the Father thatbegat him as he himself is known of his Father. To state thematter in brief, I remind you of the gospel, "None knoweththe Son, but the Father: neither knoweth any the Father, savethe Son."26

8. Nor must you make the Son alien from the Father27, nor,on the other hand, put your faith in a Father-who-is-his-own-Son, by making the concepts coalesce;28 but you must believethat there is one only-begotten Son of one God, the Word whois God before all ages. He is Word, not as though uttered29 anddiffused upon the air, nor to be likened to unsubstantial words.30

But he is the Son-Word, maker of rational creatures, the Wordthat hears the Father and himself declares it.31 If God permit,I shall speak more fully of these matters when time serves, forI do not forget my proposal, at this stage, to make introductionto the faith in the form of brief headings.

9. Of Christ's birth of a Virgin. You must believe that this only-begotten Son of God came down from heaven to this earthbecause of our sins, and took upon him manhood of like passions

26 M a t t . 11 -.27. 27 As did Arius.28 As did the Modalis t Monarchians or Patripassians of the second century,

of whom Noetus and Sabellius are historic leaders. T o safeguard faithin the full and true deity of Christ, they m a d e him personally identicalwith the Father , Sabellius refining the doctrine by making the Father,for the purpose of the incarnation, "unfold" into Trini ty of being.

29 prophorikos, a word coined by the Stoics, to express rational thought whenit externalizes itself to the paren t mind in which it was conceived. Though tgerminally implanted in the mind (as the Stoics said endiathetos) hasindefinite possibilities of development. But the moment it leaves the mindas an ut tered message (logosprophorikos), potentiality ends in actualization.T h e thinker 's message is limited to wha t he has said, and even tha t isa wast ing quant i ty , through failure to unders tand, inattention, and for-getfulness on the par t of the hearers.

30 Words are "unsubstantial" in the sense that their meaning does not arisefrom the sounds or syllables of which they consist, but in the existenceof the thing, concrete or abstract, to which they are appropriate. Cyril issafeguarding against the associations of "Word" which would lead to itsapplication to the Son of God in a way suggesting that the existence ofthe Word-Son was dependent on the world that God willed to createthrough him; in short Cyril was fully orthodox in his doctrine of theSon of God, but seeks to express his faith otherwise than by the formulaof Nicaea.

31 Cyril here relates the Son to the Father in the same way that the FourthGospel relates the Paraclete to the Father and the Son. (John 16:13).

IO4 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

with ours, by being born of the Holy Virgin and of HolySpirit,32 and this incarnation was not docetic33 or imaginary,but true incarnation. He did not pass through the Virgin asthough passing through a channel,34 but his flesh grew trulyfrom her flesh and he was truly fed upon her milk. He trulyate as we eat, and drank as we drink. For if the incarnationwas but seeming, then did it but seem to bring salvation.35

Christ was twofold. As to what was visible, he was man, andas to what is invisible, he was God.36 As man, he ate genuinelyas we do, for he had the same fleshly needs as we have, but asGod he made five loaves feed five thousand men. As man hetruly died, and as God, on the third day, he raised to life hisbody that was dead. As man he was really asleep in the boat,while, as God, he came walking upon the waters.37

10. Of the Cross. Christ was truly crucified for our sins. Evensupposing you were disposed to contest this, your surroundingsrise up before your eyes to refute you, this sacred Golgothawhere we have now come together38 because of him who wascrucified here. Yes, and the wood of the cross is henceforth hereand there distributed all over the world.39 Now, he was not

32 Cyril uses no definite article. To have done so would have been to placethe Holy Spirit in the position of Father of Jesus. Without the article, thephrase is equivalent to "miraculously born of the Holy Virgin."

33 Docetic means "seeming without genuinely being." Many of the earlyGnostic heresies were docetic, in supposing that Christ was not genuinelysubject to the realities and limitations of human existence.

34 The Valentinians, in the second century, attributed to Christ a "psychic"body, which entered the world by passing through the material body ofMary "like water passing through a pipe."

35 This argument, that a docetic Christ offered no real hope of man'ssalvation, meets us first in the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch,martyred in A.D. 115.

36 Here Cyril over-simplifies, and would be Apollinarian if strictly interpreted.37 Thus Cyril approaches Christology on the line that was to become clas-

sical in the Tome of Pope Leo, a century later.38 Note that Cyril, here for the first time, but repeatedly in the course of

the lectures, treats these as taking place on the very site of the crucifixion.This is incompatible with the assumption that the identification of themonticulus crucis in the garden court between the basilica and the rotundaof the Anastasis had already taken place in 350. Equally the way in whichCyril here mentions the wood of the cross, afterwards shown in the chapelon the monticulus, excludes the supposition that this sacred site outsidethe basilica had already received recognition.

39 From the visit of the empress mother Helena, in A.D. 326, and her"invention" (miraculous discovery) of the true cross of Christ buried insitu, proceeded a distribution of small portions of the cross to privilegedpilgrims. The Letter of Cyril to Constantius which is printed below,

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES IO5

crucified for sins which he had done, but to free us from the sinsthat are wholly ours. And though he was, at that time, scornedof men, and as man smitten on the face, creation recognizedhim to be God. For when the sun saw its master being dis-honoured, it shuddered and ceased to shine, not bearing to seethe sight.40

11. Of the Sepulchre. Christ was truly, as man, laid in a tombin the rock, but for dread of him the rocks were rent asunder.He went down to regions under the earth to redeem from thencethe righteous.41 For, tell me, do you want the living to enjoythe grace of God, and that when the most part of them are notdeeply religious, and are you quite content that those that havebeen so long while imprisoned, even from Adam down, shouldnever come to deliverance? Isaiah the prophet with clarionvoice proclaimed so many things of Christ. Would you not havethe King go down and redeem his herald ? David and Samuelwere down there, and all the prophets, including John, whosent and asked him, "Art thou he that should come, or do welook for another?"42 And would you not have our Lord godown and rescue men like that?

designed to celebrate Constantius as no less favoured of God than Con-stantine, is the first document tha t alludes explicitly to the invention.By the time of Aetheria, as we have seen, a chapel had been erected inthe garden court west of the Mar tyry , to house the portion of the crossretained by the Church of Jerusalem, and an annual commemoration ofthe invention had been established, with an ostension of the relic in thepresence of the bishop. In the present passage we have our most solidhistorical evidence corroborat ing the invention. For it shows us that,despite the silence of Eusebius, fragments of what the Church of Jerusalemclaimed and believed to be the true cross had been given to visitorsrepresenting churches all over the known world, in a process that musthave covered a number of years.

40 Such poetical fancies connected with the crucifixion had, no doubt , theirorigin in a long tradit ion of Paschal preaching. We may compare theSermon of Meli to of Sardis (about A.D. I 80), " T h e Master has been treatedin unseemly wise, with his body naked. For this reason the lights ofheaven turned away, and the day darkened, that it might hide him whowas stripped upon the cross." (Edition by Campbel l Bonner, Studies andDocuments, X I I , Christophers, London, 1940, p . 179.)

41 The re was no clause on the descent into Hades in the Jerusalem creed,though, by this time, such a clause was present in the baptismal creedsof some churches in the D a n u b e country. T h e argumentat ive form in whichCyril casts his section on the en tombment suggests that his teaching atthis point might be thought novel. T h a t he should wish to include thesubject in his epitome indicates the advanced character of theology inJerusalem.

42 Matt. 11:3.


12. Of Christ's resurrection. But he that descended beneath theearth came up again from thence, and Jesus who was buriedtruly rose again, the third day. Now should Jews ever try topull your faith to pieces/3 counter them instantly by askingthus: Jonah came forth from the whale after three days, anddo you then say that it is not true that Christ rose from theearth after three days? A corpse that touched the bones ofElisha came to life again, and will you argue that he whomade men could not more easily than that be raised up by thepower of God ? So, then, Christ truly rose again, and after hisresurrection was seen once more by the disciples. Twelve dis-ciples were witnesses of his resurrection, and the measure oftheir witness is not their winning speech, but their striving forthe truth of the resurrection unto torture and to death. Well,now, "at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every wordbe established," Scripture says.44 But those who bore witnessto the resurrection of Christ were a round dozen. And after thatare you going to find the resurrection incredible?45

13. Of Christ received up. When Jesus had run the course ofhis endurance, and redeemed men from their sins, he ascendedup again into the heavens and a cloud received him from sight.Angels stood by as he ascended, while apostles gazed. If anyonedoes not credit these words, let him believe simply in virtue ofthe things he sees today. In the case of every monarch that dies,his power is extinguished in the same breath as his life. ButChrist is no sooner crucified than he begins to be worshippedby the whole universe. We preach the crucified, and see, thedemons tremble. Many have been the victims of crucifixionthrough the ages, but of which of them but of him did theinvocation ever drive off the demons ?

14. So let us not be ashamed of the cross of Christ, butthough someone else keeps it secret, do you openly sign itupon your forehead, so that evil spirits beholding the royalcipher may fly far from you, terrified. Make this sign as youeat and drink, when you sit down, when you go to bed, whenyou get up again, while you are talking, while you are walking;in brief, at your every undertaking. He who was crucified then

43 In Palestine and Syria, unsophisticated Christians were quite likely tobe discomfited by the Jewish controversialists with whom they came incontact in the market, or on the road. The influence of Judaism wasformidable enough to justify such lessons in polemic.

44 Deut. 19:15.45 The imaginary Jew is the addressee throughout.


is now in heaven above. For we would have cause to be ashamedif, after he had been crucified and entombed, he had remainedentombed. But now, he who was crucified on this very Golgothaascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives there to the east.For from hence he went down into Hades and came again to ushere. Again he went up from us into heaven, when the Fathercalled him saying, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I makethine enemies thy footstool."46

15, Of judgement to come. This ascended Jesus Christ is comingagain, from heaven, and not from anywhere on earth. I say"not from anywhere on earth," since there are going to bemany antichrists now arising on earth. For, as you have beheld,many already began to say, I am Christ.47 Besides, "the abom-ination of desolation"48 is still to come, giving himself theusurped title of Christ. But I bid you look for the true Christ,the only-begotten Son of God coming, but from heaven, andnever again from anywhere on earth; appearing to all moreclearly than any lightning, or any brilliance of light, escortedby angels, to judge quick and dead and reign as king, in aheavenly and eternal kingdom that knows no end. In that pointalso I bid you make sure your faith; since many are sayingthat the kingdom of Christ has an end.49

16. Of the Holy Spirit. Also you must believe in the HolySpirit and possess the right knowledge about him, seeing thatthere are many who are alien to the Holy Spirit and teach adoctrine concerning him that is no better than blasphemy.50

46 p s . 1 1 0 : 1 .47 Mat t . 24 :5 . Jerusalem folk would perhaps think of Barcochba, but see

below, Lecture xv. 5.48 Matt. 24:15.49 Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, prominent among the Consubstantialists

at Nicaea, had later exposed the whole Nicene cause to the greatestsuspicion, by saying that the eternal Word, consubstantial with the Father,only became the Son of God by incarnation; and was incarnate solely forthe salvation of the world. When that purpose has been fully accomplished,Marcellus said, Christ's kingdom will end, and God will be all in all.Marcellus had a deacon named Photinus, who became bishop of Sirmium,and went on teaching Marcellus' doctrine unpunished till very shortlyafter the date of Cyril's lectures. The news of all these developments musthave quickly reached Jerusalem by means of pilgrims. And, as Cyril nodoubt saw, the heresies themselves might reach Jerusalem by the samemeans. Hence this warning.

so This is the earliest reference to the currency of a doctrine which reducedthe Holy Spirit expressly to the status of a creature. In less than a decadefrom this lecture, Athanasius was beginning to refute such a doctrine asit had come to his knowledge in Egypt. While it was almost necessarily


But I bid you learn that this Holy Spirit is one and indivisible,but of manifold powers. Many are his activities, but he himselfis not parcelled out among them. He knows all mysteries, and"searcheth all things, even the deep things of God."51 Hedescended upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a dove.He wrought in the Law and in the prophets. And it is thisHoly Spirit that seals your soul now, when the time of yourbaptism comes. Every intelligible nature has need of sanctifi-cation from him. If any dare blaspheme against the Holy Spirit,he has no forgiveness, "either in this world, or in that whichis to come."52 In honour he is honoured with the majesty ofthe Father and the Son. Thrones and dominions, principalitiesand powers, depend on him.53 For there is one God the Fatherof Christ, and one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son ofGod, and one Holy Spirit, who sanctifies all and makes divine,54

who spoke in the Law and in the prophets, in the old covenantand in the new.

17. Always keep the thought of this sealing in your mind,according to what has now been told you, in a summary wayjust skimming the surface. But if the Lord permit, I will setit forth, according to my powers, with demonstration from theScriptures. For when we are dealing with the divine and holymysteries of the faith, we must not deliver anything whatso-ever, without the sacred Scriptures, nor let ourselves be misledby mere probability, or by marshalling of arguments. And do

the sequel to the Arian doctrine of the Son of God, the question of thecreaturehood of the Holy Spirit did not become a public issue at once.There was a reason for its early prominence in Palestine, in that Eusebiusof Caesarea, in controverting Marcellus, with the works of Origen ashis armoury, slipped into plain assertion that the Holy Spirit is a creature.That Cyril should so clearly dissociate himself from the Eusebian doctrineat this point, is proof of his fundamental opposition to any Arian prin-ciples. G. R. B. Shapland in Section iii, "Who were the Tropici?" of hisintroduction to The Lectures of St Athanasius concerning the Holy Spirit(London, 1951), may be consulted on the emergence of the doctrine towhich Cyril here alludes.

51 I Cor. 2:10. 52 Matt. 12:32.53 This sentence seems to echo the last part of the 14th Section of Rufinus'

version of Origen, On First Principles, Book IV, c. iii (expounding Isa.6:2, 3) where Origen in turn acknowledges debt to his Hebrew teacher.

54 Encouraged by II Peter 114, "that ye might be partakers of the divinenature," Greek Christian theologians thought of salvation in terms ofbeing deified or made divine. Athanasius in particular adopted thewatchword, "The Son of God became Man, that we might be deified."Cyril thinks of this "deification" as advancing pari passu with sanctifi-cation.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES

not simply credit me, when I tell you these things, unless youget proof from the Holy Scriptures of the things set forth byme. For this salvation of ours by faith is not by sophistical useof words, but by proof from the sacred Scriptures.

18. Next after knowledge of this venerable, glorious, and allholy faith, comes the maxim "Know thyself," who you are;that is to say that man has a twofold constitution, combiningsoul and body, and that, as we said just now, the same God iscreator of your soul and of your body. And, you must knowyour soul to be endowed with free-will, and to be God's fairestwork in the image of himself, its maker. It is immortal in asfar as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creaturenot subject to decay, because these qualities have been bestowedby God upon it. And it has the power to do what it chooses.For you do not sin because you were born that way, nor ifyou fornicate is it by chance. And do not take any notice ofwhat some people say, that the conjunctions of the stars compelyou to fall into unclean living.55 Why should you avoid acknow-ledging that you have done wrong by blaming it onto the starsthat had nothing to do with it ? I beg of you, never have any-thing to do with astrologers, for of these men Scripture says,"Let now the astrologers stand up and save thee" and, furtheron, "Behold they shall be as stubble: the fire shall burn them:they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame.56

19. Learn this also, that before it came into this world, yoursou] had committed no sin, but that we come into the worldunblemished, and, being here, sin of our own choice.57 Do notlisten, I say, to anyone who expounds "If then I do that whichI would not"58 in the wrong sense, but remember who says,"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of theland; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with thesword,"59 and what follows. Remember again, "As ye haveyielded your members servants of uncleanness and of iniquityunto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants torighteousness unto holiness."60 Remember also the passage

55 In Syria and Palestine there was a strong leaning to fatalism, to whichastrology provided a show of reason. See Nemesius on this subject,below, p. 400. 56 Isa. 47:13, 14.

57 Cyril thus formally abjures the most offensive feature of Origenism, thedoctrine, prefigured in Greek paganism by the speculations of the Orphicpoets which Plato describes in his Cratylus, of a prenatal fall of the soul,in consequence of which it was united to a body and set to work out itsown purgation in this present life.

58 Rom. 7:16. 59 Isa. 1:19, 20. 60 Rom. 6:19.


where it says, "And as they did not like to retain God in theirknowledge,"61 and the other, "That which may be known ofGod is manifest in them,"62 and "their eyes have they closed"63;and again where God charges us saying, "Yet I had plantedthee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thouturned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?"64

20. The soul is immortal, and all souls, whether of men orof women, are alike, and the sexes are distinguishable only bytheir bodily members.65 There is not one order of souls thatnaturally sins, and another that is naturally upright,66 but bothsinning and righteous are so by their own choice, being ofone form and alike in every particular essential to a soul.

Yes, I know that I am giving a long lecture, and that it isalready getting late, but what ought we to think about so muchas about salvation? Do you not want to take trouble to getprovision for your way, against the heretics ? Do you not wantto know the twists of the road, so as not, through not knowing,to run over a precipice ? If your teachers think it no small gainfor you to learn these things, surely you who are learning themought gladly to welcome a copious instruction!

21. The soul possesses free will. The devil has power to sug-gest evil, but he was not given the power to compel you againstyour will. Say that he prompts you to think of fornication.If you please, you have accepted the thought, but if not, thenyou have not. If you cannot help fornicating, for whom didGod prepare a hell ? If you do righteousness because you aremade like that, and not because you deliberately chose to, forwhom has God prepared crowns of inexpressible beauty? Asheep is meek, but no sheep was ever crowned for being it,seeing that it has its meekness by nature, and not because itexercised that choice.

22. Of the body. So now, beloved, you know as much as youneed to know about the soul. And the next thing is to take in6i Rom. 1:28. 62 Rom. 1:19. 63 Matt. 13:15. 6 4Jer. 2:21.65 The development of psychology since Cyril's days has shown this to be

an overstatement. The point from which Cyril approaches the questionis that if female souls were substantially different from male souls, onemust conclude that souls pre-existed and determined the sex of theirbodies. Alternatively one must suppose the soul a function of body.Neither supposition would be acceptable to Cyril. Dean Church supposesthat Cyril had in view Tertullian, On the SouL c. 36. But it is more likelythat he approached the question from review of the speculations ofOrigen. And his dogmatism is, no doubt, based on Gal. 3:28.

66 O r i g e n , On First Principles, Book I I I , c. i, Sec t ion 8 a rgues to this effectagainst Gnostics.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES III

as much as you can about your body. Do not bear with anyoneif he says that the body is alien to God. For those who believethat the body is this, and that the soul dwells in the body asin something alien to itself, are quite ready to use the body infornication.67 But why have they depreciated this marvellousbody? Wherein does it fall short in dignity? What is thereabout its construction that is not a work of art? Ought not thealienators of the body from God to have taken knowledge oxthe most brilliant ordaining of eyes? or how the ears are placedright and left, and so receive hearing with nothing in the way ?Or how the sense of smell can distinguish one vapour fromanother, and receives exhalations? Or how the tongue has adouble ministry in maintaining the faculty of taste and theactivity of speech ? How the lungs, hidden away out of sight,keep up the breathing of air with never a pause ? Who estab-lished the ceaseless beating of the heart ? Who distributed bloodinto so many veins and arteries? Who was so wise as to knit bonesto muscles ? Who was it that assigned us part of our food forsustenance, and separated off part to form a decent secretion,while hiding away the indecent members in the more fittingpositions ? Who, when man was so constituted that he will die,ensured the continuance of his kind by making intercourse soready?68

23. Do not tell me that the body is the cause of sin. For werethe body the cause of sin} why does no corpse sin ? Put a swordinto the right hand of a man who has just died, and no murdertakes place. Let beauty in every guise pass before a youth justdead, and he will not be moved to fornication. Wlierefore so ?Because the body does not sin of itself, but it is the soul thatsins, using the body.69

67 Cyril m a y here be drawing upon Irenaeus , Against Heresies, Book I,cc. 25, 26, where I renaeus accuses the Carpocrat ians and Nicolaitans ofjustifying indifferent mora l conduct on the strength of a dualistic doctrineof creation. T h e only formidable teachers of dualism that Cyril 's hearerswere very likely to meet would be Manichees, and the conclusion whichCyril here draws would not apply to them. I t would seem rather to bea debat ing point which Cyril is making, his real concern being to inculcatereverence for the body.

68 The physiological and anatomical argument for the creation of the bodyby God, which appears at much greater length in Nemesius, below, hadclearly become a commonplace of Christian apologetic. The "decentsecretion" is that of fumes through the pores, in contradistinction to theurine and faeces.

*9 In effect, this argument is a development of Rom. 6:7, "He that is deadis freed from sin." It is only valid to prove that the body is not an active


The body is the soul's tool, and also serves as a garment androbe of the soul. If then the body is given over to fornicationby the soul, the body is impure, but if it cohabits with a holysoul, it is a temple of the Holy Spirit. This is not my assertion.It was Paul the Apostle that said "Know ye not that your bodiesare the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you."70 Takecare, therefore, of the body, as the possible temple of the HolySpirit. Do not pollute your flesh with fornication, and soil whatis your fairest robe. But should you have polluted it, cleanse itnow by penitence, for this is the time for washing clean.

24. Be attentive to the doctrine of chastity, and especiallythe order of solitaries and virgins who are successfully accom-plishing an angelic life71 in the world; and after them, let therest of the people of the Church give heed to chastity. There isa grand crown laid up for you, brethren. Do not barter awaya great dignity for a paltry pleasure. Listen to the Apostlesaying, "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, asEsau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright."72 Hence-forth, on account of your purpose of chastity, your name isinscribed in the register of angels. See that you are notexpunged again for commerce in fornication.

25. But, again, do not make the opposite mistake of guarding

principle of evil. Cyril is, of course, straining against the tendency toregard the body as unmanageable, to which the Manichees had provideddoctrinal support.

70 I Cor. 6:19.71 There grew up, in the fourth century, a fashion of alluding to the life

lived by the monks and other ascetics of Egypt and Syria-Palestine, asangelic. By the fifth, as may be judged from the works of Theodoret,"angelical" had become a synonym of "ascetic" as applied to a way oflife, or conversation. The primary idea was that the ascetics were givingthemselves up wholly to the contemplation of God. Already we find thethought in Clement of Alexandria, who (Stromateis, iv, 25) describes thesoul of the "True Gnostic" or perfect ascetic as "becoming as it werean angel . . . rapt in contemplation." A more obscure passage inStromateis, vii, 2, sets at the summit of the visible (i.e., human) world,angelothesia, transference to the status of angels. Again the contemplativelife is the reason. But in the present passage, while the idea of angeliclife was no doubt put into Cyril's mind by the current usage, he so ex-presses himself as to make clear allusion to Luke 20:36, and to think ofthe solitaries and virgins as "equal unto the angels" because, even on thisside of the grave, they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Ina place so far removed from economic independence as Jerusalem wherea minimum of material goods could be spared for the unproductive, theChurch gained a maximum profit from the accession of men and womendevoted to her service and living single and sparingly, as ascetics.

72 Heb. 12:16.


chastity successfully and being puffed up with disdain of thosewho have come down to marrying. "For marriage is honourable,and the bed undefiled"73 in the words of the Apostle. Andsurely, were not you, who are keeping your purity, sprung froma marriage ? Do not, I say, repudiate silver because you possesssomething golden. Those, on the other hand, who are in wed-lock, and are using it aright, are to stand firm in hope: I meanpeople who see that their wedded life is lawabiding, and donot let it become wanton through immoderate licence: peoplewho recognize times for abstaining "that they may give them-selves unto prayer"74; people who bring clean bodies, as wellas clean clothes, to join in the assemblies in church, havingentered wedlock for the sake of offspring, and not for carnalpleasure.

26. Do not let the once-married set at nought those whohave come together in marriage for the second time.75 Forcontinence is a fine thing, and admirable. But folk may bepardoned for contracting a second marriage, lest infirmityend in fornication. "It is good for them if they abide evenas I," says the Apostle, "but if they cannot contain, let themmarry; it is better to marry than to burn."76 But every otherkind of sex-relation must be put right away, fornication, adultery,and every form of debauchery. The body is to be kept purefor the Lord, that the Lord may look favourably upon the body.

27. Concerning food. Let the body have its victuals, that itmay live and render its services unimpeded, but not so as tobe given to daintiness. Let these be your rules regarding food,since many trip up over meats. There are those who eat things73 Heb. 13:4. 74 I Cor. 7 : 5 .75 T h e r e was a very s trong prejudice in the early Church against second

marr iage . T h e pu r i t an sects, such as tha t led by Tertul l ian after he adoptedMontan i sm, and the Novat ians , declared remarr iage cont rary to divinelaw. T h e Fathers , giving to the Pastoral Epistles the author i ty of Paul ,first in terpreted I Cor. 7 :8 , 9 as a concession to infirmity, and thenI T i m . 3 : 2 , 12, as showing it to be degrading infirmity, disqualifying foroffice in the Church . T h e a rgumen t based on these texts has been tha tone who marr ies twice must be taken thereby to plead incontinence, andcannot therefore be reverenced by the people of the Church . Cyril isunusual ly liberal in applying the injunction " Judge n o t " in this con-nection. Perhaps it counted for something tha t the emperor Constantiuswas contempla t ing remar r iage . In Lat in Christianity the difficulty ofmain ta in ing logically the degrading character of second marr iage has ledto an a r g u m e n t based on the concept of marr iage as a sacrament , whichin tu rn has produced a n infinitely complicated law of the relation ofmar r i age to office in the Church .

76 I Cor. 7:8, 9.


sacrificed to idols without taking any notice. There are otherswho practise mortification and then pass judgement on thosewho eat. And so the soul of this person or that is soiled indifferent ways, all in connection with the question of meats,through their not knowing the sensible grounds for eating ornot eating. For we fast by abstaining from wine and from meat,not as though these things were abominations that we musthate, but as expecting a reward for doing so, namely that, inspurning things of sense, we may enjoy a spiritual and heavenlyfeast, "that sowing now in tears, we may reap in joy,"77 in theworld to come. But do not, in fasting, despise those who aretaking such food, and taking it because of bodily infirmity.Do not blame those "who use a little wine, for their stomach'ssake, and their often infirmities,"78 and certainly do not adjudgethem to be sinners. Do not abhor flesh-meats as if they weretaboo, for the Apostle evidently knew people like that, sincehe says that there are "who forbid to marry, and command toabstain from meats which God hath created to be received withthanksgiving of them which believe."79 If therefore you areabstaining from these things, let it not be as from things abom-inated, or your reward is lost, but as good things let them betranscended, in the quest of the fairer spiritual rewards thatare set before you.

28. For the safety of your soul, never eat any food that hasbeen offered to idols, seeing that it is not only I that am con-cerned about such meats, but the apostles and James the bishopof this Church were so concerned then. And the apostles andelders write a catholic epistle to all the Gentiles, bidding themabstain in the first place from things offered to idols, and afterthat from blood and anything strangled. For there are manysavage races of men who live like dogs, lap up blood, andbehave exactly like the wildest of wild beasts, also eating freelyanything strangled.80 But do you, as a servant of Christ, so eatas to eat with reverence. And I need add nothing more on food.

77 p s . 126:5. 78 I T i m - 5 : 23- 7 9 1 T i m - 4-3-so Canon law in the Syrian-Palestinian Church grew up at first in a suc-

cession of church orders, pseudepigraphically composed to represent thelegislation of the apostles. It followed that the apostolic decree of Acts15:29 must be made part of it, even though it was dubious what thedecree meant. We see here the ingenuity of Cyril turned to the task ofdrawing out an edifying exegesis, by supposing that the apostles, withprophetic foresight that the most savage races would receive the faith,legislated for this in advance, leaving the more civilized to draw themoral "so eat as to eat with reverence."

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES II5

29. Of clothes. Let your clothes be plain, and not showy; foryour needful covering and not for vanity; to keep you warm inwinter and cover your naked body. But take care that theexcuse of covering your naked body does not carry you to theother extreme of over-dressing.

30. Of our rising again. Reverence, I pray you, this body ofyours, knowing that you will rise from the dead and be judgedtogether with this body. If any suggestion of disbelief shouldcome to you as though such a thing is impossible, look at thosefacts about yourself that do not meet the eye. Tell me, forexample, where do you suppose you were, a hundred or moreyears ago ? Out of how very small and inconsiderable a primalmatter have you grown up to such big stature and such dignityof form ? Well then, cannot he that brought a nothing into beingraise up what for a while had being and perished again ? Willhe who for our sakes raises up the corn that is sown and dies,year by year, find it hard to raise up us ourselves, for whosesakes he was raised up ? You see how the trees have been stand-ing now for so many months bare of fruit or leaves, but everyone of them, when the winter is over lives again as if from thedead. Shall we then not live again more and more readilythan they? By the counsel of God, Moses5 rod was transformedinto the unlike nature of a serpent, and shall not man be re-stored to be himself again after he has fallen into death ?

31. Do not listen to those who say that this body is notraised up; for raised it is, as Isaiah witnesses, saying, "The deadshall arise, and they in the tombs shall be raised."81 Or, asDaniel says, "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earthshall arise; some to everlasting life, and some to everlastingshame.'582 But while rising again is the common lot of all men,the manner of rising again is not alike for all. For while we allreceive everlasting bodies, those bodies are not alike for all:that is to say, the righteous receive such bodies as may enablethem to join with the band of angels throughout eternity, whilesinners receive bodies in which to undergo through the agesthe torture of their sins.

32. Of the font. Because this is so, the Lord in loving kindnesstook the initiative and gave us baptismal repentance whereinto cast away the multitude of our sins—I might better say, thewhole burden of sin—and receive from the Holy Spirit the seal,so becoming heirs of eternal life. But we have already spoken

81 Isa. 26:19 in the Septuagint.82 Dan. 12:2.

I l 6 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

at sufficient length about the font. So let us come to the intro-ductory instruction that still remains to be given.

33./ Of the divine Scriptures. These are the things that we learn83

from the inspired Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament.For one God is the God of both covenants. In the Old Testamenthe foretold Christ as he appeared in the New, and was ourschoolmaster leading us to Christ by way of Law and prophets."For before faith came, we were kept under the Law" and "Thelaw was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ."84 And shouldyou ever hear someone of the heretics85 blaspheming the Lawor the prophets, cry out against him this saving phrase and say,"Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil."86 And bestudious to learn, and that from the lips of the Church, all aboutthe books of the Old Testament, and about those likewise ofthe NewTjBut I charge you not to read any non-canonical87

book. For while you remain ignorant of Scriptures that allconfess to be inspired, why waste time on questionable reading ?Read the divine Scriptures of the Old Testament, which is tosay the twenty-two books interpreted by the two and seventytranslators.88

83 That is, all that has gone before in this Lecture. Cyril claims to base allthe teaching of the Church in Scripture. It is to be noted how final anargument he seems to think it to be, with a Jerusalem audience, that amatter should be asserted in the Old Testament.

84 Gal. 3:23, 24. 85 Probably Marcionites. 86 Matt. 5:17.87 The word used is "apocryphal," but it is used here not quite in the same

sense as it is today. For Cyril seems to include under apocrypha every-thing that was not read liturgically in the Church of Jerusalem, whileimplying that the apocryphal is not all bad. Athanasius, writing some tenyears after him (Paschal Letter XXXIX) similarly divides apocryphainto a few good books and an indefinite number of spurious and harmfulones. But apparently the Egyptian Church used the good apocrypha(most of what we know as the Old Testament Apocrypha, together withthe Didache and Hermas) as preliminary reading for enquirers. Presu-mably these books were considered to be good reading, that might ac-climatize enquirers to the atmosphere of the Church, but without leavingany enquirer who drew back a claim to know the sacred Scriptures ofthe Christians. It seems clear that this Athanasian line was not followedat Jerusalem.

88 That is to say, the Greek version of the Old Testament known as theSeptuagint. The account of the origin of the Septuagint that follows,while it seems to show knowledge of the version in Irenaeus, AgainstHeresies, Bk. Ill , c. xxi, Section 2, is put together with considerablelearning, being the neatest summary of the legendary history to comefrom an ancient writer. Cyril gathers up into one account the variousdevelopments which had taken place since the spurious Letter of Aristeas(about 100 B.C., the work of an Alexandrine Jew) made the legend

T H E C A T E C H E T I C A L L E C T U R E S IIJ

34. For Alexander, king of the Macedonians, when he died,divided his kingdom into four dominions, the first of Babylonia,the next of Macedonia, then Asia, and last Egypt. One of thekings of Egypt was Ptolemy Philadelphus, a king very favourableto learning and a collector of books, indiscriminately. He heardfrom his chief librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, of the divineScriptures of the Law and the prophets. He judged it to be theworthier course, by far, not to get possession of the books byforce, from people who gave them up unwillingly,89 but toconciliate their possessors instead, with gifts and friendliness.He knew that what men surrender unwillingly under pressurethey often spoil, whereas if it is forthcoming of the donor's freechoice it is authentic throughout. So he despatched lavishpresents to the temple then standing in Jerusalem, to Eleazarits high priest, and got him to send him six men out of each ofthe twelve tribes of Israel as translators. After that he conceivedthe idea of putting it to the test whether these books weredivine scriptures or not. But he was suspicious lest the men sentfrom Jerusalem might put their heads together. So he assignedto each of the translators who had come to him his own privatechamber in the quarter called Pharos in the environs of Alex-andria. And there he ordered each of them to translate thewhole Scriptures. The men completed their task in two andseventy days, all translating simultaneously in their separatechambers and without having any contact with one another.And when Ptolemy collected together all their translations, hefound that they did not merely agree as to the meaning butwere verbally identical. For what took place was not the result

popular. The historical probability regarding the Septuagint is that itis the work of a series of translators belonging to Alexandrine Jewry,made with the purpose of halting the Hellenization of their Alexandrineco-religionists, and of keeping them to the faith of their fathers. Thereare signs that it was at first bitterly resented by the Jewish authoritiesin Palestine. But as the gain to Judaism from the Greek version becameevident, the opportunity arose for covering over the initial tensions bya legendary account of the Greek version that honoured the Jerusalemauthorities, while implying the loyalty and missionary success of theIsraelites of Alexandria. To the Church Fathers, the existence of a GreekOld Testament seemed so providential that they were ready to take upthe Jewish legend as it came to them through "Aristeas," Philo, andJosephus, and to add to it freely. Cyril concludes Section 34 by deducingthat the Septuagint, as it lay in the hands of the Church, is verballyinspired of God.

89 An allusion, perhaps, to the last persecution, which began by forcingChristians to surrender their Scriptures to the imperial officers. Ptolemywas more magnanimous than Diocletian.

I l 8 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

of sophistry, or contrived by human ingenuity. But just as theScriptures had been verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, sothe Holy Spirit guided their translation.

35. Read these twenty-two books, and do not have anythingto do at all with the uncanonical writings. Give your earnestcare to those books only which we read without hesitation inchurch. The apostles, and the bishops who were set over thechurches in ancient times greatly excelled you, both in prudenceand piety, and they handed down these Scriptures to us. Ifyou are a son of the Church, you must not modify their canon.And that, as I say, means reading carefully the twenty-twobooks of the Old Testament, and if you are ready to learn them,I will say over their names, and do you try and commit themto memory. That is to say, in the Law the first are the fivebooks of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter-onomy; next, Joshua, the son of Nun, and then the book ofJudges, with Ruth,90 numbered as seventh. Of the remaininghistorical books, the First and Second Books of Kings countwith the Hebrews as one book, and similarly the Third andFourth Books. In the same way they count as one book theFirst and Second Books of Chronicles. The First and SecondBooks of Esdras91 are counted as one book, while Esther makesthe twelfth; so much for the historical books. There are fivepoetical books, Job, the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,and the Song of Songs as seventeenth book. In addition are fiveprophetical books, that is one book of the Twelve Minor Pro-phets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentationsand the Epistle to the Captivity,92 then Ezekiel, and Danielas the two-and-twentieth book of the Old Testament.

90 The Canon of Athanasius (Paschal Letter XXXIX) also counts twenty-two books of the Old Testament, but separates Ruth from Judges, andomits Esther.

91 Not the books of Esdras in our Apocrypha, but the canonical books ofEzra and Nehemiah.

92 In our Apocrypha, the Epistle of Jeremiah to the Captivity appears asthe sixth chapter of the Book of Baruch. Baruch was regarded as canonicalby Christian writers from Athenagoras (late second century) to Jerome,who saw it had no place in the Hebrew canon. The praise of Wisdom,3:9-4:1 specially commended it to the Fathers, as praise of the divineLogos. Cyril, who treats the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus asapocrypha (Athanasius recognizes them as reading for enquirers) thuswithdraws authority from them. Nevertheless he cites each of them threetimes as if they were Scripture. He also cites Susanna and Bel and theDragon. It is likely enough that both these were incorporated in hisDaniel, and not impossible, if unlikely, that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES I ig

36. Of the New Testament there are four Gospels only. Allothers are spurious and harmful. And the Manichees forged aGospel according to Thomas93 which is smeared with the scentof the name of Gospel to murder the souls of those who aresufficiently foolish. Receive, however, the Acts of the TwelveApostles, and add the seven General Epistles of James, Peter,John and Jude. The seal set upon them all and the latest workof disciples is the fourteen epistles of Paul.94 Treat all otherChristian writings as in a different class. And anything that isnot read in the church do not you read privately, as you havealready heard me say. And that is all, on that subject.

37. But do you flee every activity of which the devil is author,and do not heed the serpent that fell away, who in substancewas good but of his own deliberate choice transformed himselfinto what he is. He has the power, I grant you, to win over thosewho are willing to be won, but he cannot compel anyone toyield. Have nothing to do with astrologers.95 Have nothing todo with augurs. Take no notice of omens, or believe in thefabulous prophecies of the Greeks. And do not suffer that youshould even hear of sorcery, or charms, or the utterly forbiddenpractices of necromancy. Keep away from every kind of licen-tiousness. Be no slave to your stomach, nor to any form ofpleasure. Rise above avarice of every kind, and scorn usury.

were incorporated with Proverbs. Possibly they were in a class by them-selves, being read in the Church of Jerusalem without formal inclusionin the Canon.

93 The "Gospel according to T h o m a s " of which evidence survives was knownto Origen, and cannot be the work of the Manichees. If there was notanother so-called Gospel according to Thomas, either composed orrevised by the Manichees for propaganda purposes, and if Cyril is mis-takenly at tr ibuting this Gnostic Gospel to the Manichees, it may betaken as indicating that he regarded Manicheeism as a leading danger.

94 We note the absence of the Apocalypse from Cyril's canon. Eusebius ofCaesarea (Church History, iii, 24, 25), while acknowledging the degreeof acceptance of the Apocalypse for reading in the church, was per-sonally inclined against it, as supporting chiliasm (belief in a thousand-year reign of Christ, coming upon earth) . It is accordingly interestingtha t it should be left out of the Jerusalem Church canon.

95 The passage now commencing has its special interest in indicating theways in which the Jerusalem Christian had to sever himself from theway of the world that surrounded him. It was a world permeated withsuperstitions from which the Christian must dissociate himself. Thepractical influence of Judaism was strong enough to need some deter-mination on the Christian side, if Christians were to treat the Sabbathas a full working-day, and ignore Jewish food rules. And the fourth-century aggressiveness of Samaritanism was sufficient to put it even beforeJudaism, as a danger to Christian converts.

12O CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

Take no part in heathen gatherings to see shows. Never, insickness, resort to amulets. Refuse all the coarseness that goeswith the frequenting of taverns. Do not be cajoled into theSamaritan sect or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has redeemedyou henceforth. Keep out of any observance of sabbaths, orrecognizing any of the innocent foods as "common or un-clean."96 Have a special abhorrence for all assemblies of wickedheretics. And use every aid to keeping safe your soul, such asfasting, prayer, giving alms, reading the oracles of God: to theend that you may so live the whole remaining time of your lifein the flesh in sobriety and godly doctrines, as to enjoy the once-for-all salvation of the font. Being thus enlisted in the armiesof heaven by our Father and our God, may you also beaccounted worthy of the heavenly crowning, in Christ Jesusour Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

LECTURE VOn Faith

The Lection is from the Epistle to the Hebrews.l

1. How great a dignity the Lord confers on you in yourtransfer from the order of catechumens to that of believers, isexpressed for you by the apostle Paul when he says "God isfaithful,2 by whom ye were called to the fellowship of his SonJesus Christ."3 Called by a God who is faithful, you receivethis epithet as well, and so are the recipient of a great dignity.For as God has the titles, good, righteous, almighty, creator ofthe universe, so also he has the title faithful. Think therefore towhat a dignity you are promoted in now coming to share one ofthe divine titles!

2. That being the situation, it is to be expected henceforththat any one of you will be found sincerely a believer. For "afaithful man, who can find?"4 It is not a case of your provingyour sincerity to me, for you are not going to be "judged of96 The allusion is to Acts 10:14.» The Lection was the n t h ch. of Heb. to the end of v. 31.2 See Note 20 to the Procatechesis. Cyril chooses the moment of the

communication of the creed as that in which the photizomenoi becomebelievers, whereas most chose the moment of actual baptism. Cyril,in short, stresses the subjective aspect of illumination to an unusualdegree.

3 I Cor. 1:9. 4 prov 20:6.


man's judgement."5 It is to God that you must show the purityof your faith, and he "trieth the reins and the hearts"6 and"knoweth the thoughts of men."7 It is no slight matter that aman should be faithful, for if he is, he is richer than if he had allwealth. "For to the faithful man belongs the whole world ofriches,"8 in the sense that he despises them and tramples themunder foot. For people who are rich as far as the eye of man cansee, and have great possessions, are poor so far as their souls areconcerned, and in proportion as they have gathered much, theypine away with coveting what they have not got. But your manof faith, by the greatest of paradoxes, abounds in his want, asknowing that all a man needs is raiment and food: so, in havingthese, and being content, he has trampled riches under foot.

3. For it is not only we who bear Christ's name that setgreat store by faith. For all the business transacted in the world,inclusive of that of persons alien to the Church, is transactedon the basis of faith. It is on this basis that the marriage lawsbring into intimate partnership persons who were strangers toone another, and because of the faith that we put in marriagecompacts, a completely unknown man is made free of personsand goods that were none of his. Faith again is the basis offarming, for unless a man believes that he will gather in thefruits of the earth he will not sustain the toils of it. Faith is thebasis of seafaring, wherein men put their trust in quite a smallwooden structure, and leave earth, the steadiest of the elements,for the uncertain motion of the waves, because they have firstcommitted themselves to hopes that are not certainties, andtaken aboard their faith as a surer hold than any anchor.Practically all human affairs are maintained on a basis of faith,and this is not something that we alone believe, but, as we said,the non-Christian world believes it too. It may be that they donot receive the Scriptures: all the same, they have such andsuch doctrines of their own to propose which likewise theyespouse by faith.9

4. Today's Lection calls you to a true faith and furthermoresets before you the way in which you must walk if you are toplease God. For it says "without faith it is impossible to please

s I Cor. 4:3. 6 p s . 7:9. 7 p s . 94:11.8 An insertion commonly found after Prov. 17:6 in the Septuagint text.9 Cyril, having used faith, in this section, with different nuances of mean-

ing, brings it at the last to meaning assent and adhesion to dogma. Allmen have dogmas, and not those only who draw them (as Cyril willalways do) from Scripture.


him."10 When, I ask you, will a man be found proposing toserve God, in the absence of any faith that God rewards suchservice? How long will a girl guard her maidenhood, or ayouth contain himself, if they do not believe in an unfadingcrown for chastity? Faith is the eye that enlightens everyconscience and fills it with understanding. For so says theprophet, "and if ye believe not, neither shall ye understand."11

According to Daniel faith "stops the mouths of lions5'12 in thatScripture says of him "Daniel was taken up out of the den, andno manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed inhis God."13 Is there any foe grimmer than the devil? And yetwe have no other armour against him but our faith, a spiritualshield against an invisible foe. For he goes on firing every kindof missile, and in the black night he shoots down such as are noton their watch. But against a foe who does not show himself wehave, in our faith, a stout protection, according to the Apostle'swords, "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shallbe able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked."14 And veryoften it is that the devil fires the "fiery dart" of lust for someshameful pleasure. But faith conjures up the picture of judge-ment due, and so quenches the dart by cooling down theinflamed imagination.15

io. The word faith is one word in the vocabulary, but hastwo separate meanings. For there is one kind of faith that hasto do with doctrines, and involves the assent of the mind inrespect to such and such a doctrine. Such faith is a boon to thesoul, as the Lord says, "He that heareth my words, and believ-eth in him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not comeinto condemnation"16 and "he that believeth on the Son is notcondemned; but is passed from death unto life."17 O how greatis God's loving-kindness! For whereas righteous men of oldwere well-pleasing to God over many years, Jesus nov/ freelygrants to you for one hour's devotion just what they obtainedfor succeeding in being well-pleasing to God over manyyears.18 For if you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that

!0 Heb. 11:6. n Isa. 7:9 in the Septuagint.i^Heb. 11:33. 13 Dan. 6:23. H Eph. 6:16.15 For brevity, sections 5-9 inclusive are omitted. 16 John 5:24.17 John 3:18 combined with John 5:24.18 The Old Testament presents us with righteous men in whom God was

well pleased. Their righteousness was established under long testing.Christ's gift to us is a not-inferior righteousness, acquired in one hour.The hour which Cyril has in mind must thus be the hour of baptism.Hence the comparison which Cyril makes with the eleventh-hour faith


God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved and trans-lated to paradise by him who led the robber into paradise.And do not doubt the possibility of this. For he who, on thisholy Golgotha,19 saved the robber for one hour of faith, willalso himself effectively save you for believing.

11. But the second kind of faith is that given by Christ by aparticular grace. "For to one is given by the Spirit the word ofwisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing."20

Now this faith that is given by the Spirit as a grace is not onlydoctrinal faith, but one that empowers activities surpassinghuman nature. For anyone who has this faith will "say to thismountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shallremove."21 For when anyone by faith says this believing thatit will happen, and not doubting in his heart, then indeed he isthe recipient of that grace. It is of such faith that is said "If yehave faith as a grain of mustard seed."22 For just as a grain ofmustard seed is of little bulk but of explosive energy, taking atrifling space for its planting and then sending out greatbranches all round, so that when it is grown it can give shelterto the birds, so in like manner the faith present in a man'ssoul achieves the greatest things by the most summary decision.For such an one places the thought of God before his mind and,as far as enlightenment by faith permits it, espies God. Hismind also ranges through the world from end to end, and withthe end of this age not yet come, beholds the judgementalready, and the bestowal of the promised rewards. Hold firm,therefore, to that faith in him which you possess, so that youmay receive in addition, and likewise from him, that whichempowers activities surpassing human nature.

12. Now the one and only faith that you are to take andpreserve in the way of learning and professing it is that whichis now being committed to you by the Church as confirmedthroughout the Scriptures. For seeing that not everyone canread the Scriptures, some because they lack the learning andothers because, for one reason or another, they find no oppor-tunity to get to know them, we gain possession of the wholedoctrine of the Christian faith in a few articles, and that to

of the penitent thief, which was, by Christ, made the means of a freegrant of righteousness.

19 Cyril thinks of the holy sites as eloquent witnesses of what happenedupon them.

20 I Cor. 12:8, 9. 21 Matt. 17:20. 22 Idem.


prevent any soul from being lost through not learning the faith.This doctrine I want you to commit to memory word for wordand say it over to one another as much as you can, not writingit out on paper but using memory to engrave it on your heart.But take care lest, in giving your whole mind to this, you should,by any chance, let any catechumen overhear what you havehad committed to you. I want you to retain this provision foryour way as long as your life shall last, and not to receive anyother faith than this henceforth: not even if I were to change mymind and say something that contradicted what you are nowbeing taught; no, nor if a dark angel were to disguise himselfas an angel of light and made to lead you astray. "For thoughwe, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel untoyou than that ye have received, let him be accursed."23 And atthis stage listen to the exact form of words and memorize thisfaith, leaving it to the appropriate season for each of the articleswhich it contains to be built up from Holy Scripture. For thesearticles of our faith were not composed out of human opinion,but are the principal points collected out of the whole ofScripture to complete a single doctrinal formulation of thefaith. And in like manner as the mustard seed contains numbersof branches-to-be within its tiny grain, so also this creed24

embraces in a few phrases all the religious knowledge containedin the Old and New Testaments together. Look now, brethren,and "hold the traditions"25 which are now being imparted toyou, and "write them on the table of your hearts."26

23 Ga l . 1 : 8 , 9 .24 Li teral ly " f a i t h . " Cyri l never uses t he technica l w o r d for a creed, symbolon.

At the same t ime he canno t be said to use Pistis (faith) as a synonym forcreed. I t is always the context t ha t determines w h e n he is using it intha t sense. Perhaps he wished to avoid a specific t e r m for somethingwhich was to be received as a secret.

25 II Thess. 2:15.26 Prov. 7:3. In some manuscripts this is immediately followed by the text

of the Nicene Creed. The transcribers of the lecture abstained, of course,from writing down what Cyril evidently recited, article by article, atthis point, viz. the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem. Thework of reconstructing this creed, mainly from the language of thelectures, but with some other available evidence, has reached a degreeof certainty, with the one doubtful point as to whether the Jerusalemcreed contained any reference to the descent into Hades. The text asgiven in G. L. H a h n , Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der altenKirche (1897, PP* l3%~4) may be rendered as follows:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven andearth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord JesusChrist, the only-begotten Son of God, true God begotten of the Father


13. Preserve them with godly fear, lest the Enemy spoil anyof you through your conceit, or some heretic misrepresent anyof the things you have had delivered to you. Faith, you see,is like cash paid over the counter27 (which is what I have nowdone) but God requires you to account for what you have had:as the Apostle says, "I charge thee before God, who quickenethall things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilatewitnessed a good confession that ye keep without spot, until theappearing of our Lord Jesus Christ"28 this faith committed toyou. A treasure of life29 has now been committed to you, andat his coming the Master looks for the deposit, "which in histimes he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, theKing of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality,dwelling in the light that no man can approach unto, whom noman hath seen or can see, to whom be honour and glory worldwithout end." Amen.30

before all worlds, by w h o m all things were m a d e ; who was m a d e flesha n d was incarna te , crucified and entombed, who rose again on the thirdday a n d ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the right h a n d ofthe Fa the r ; w h o is coming in glory to j udge the quick a n d the dead,whose k ingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Spirit , the Paraclete,t h a t spake in the prophets . And in one bapt ism of repentance for theremission of sins, a n d in one holy catholic Church , and in the resurrectionof the flesh, a n d in the life of the world to come.

W h e n this creed is compared with the baptismal creed of Gaesarea,as Eusebius represented it a t the Council of Nicaea, its general similarityof construction is obvious. But those features of Eusebius ' creed thatbespeak the theological influence of Origen upon the doctr ine of theCaesarean C h u r c h a re largely missing from Cyril 's Je rusa lem creed,while, on the other h a n d , there a re (especially in the later pa r t of thecreed) expressions which seem to represent developments tha t had takenplace in doctr inal emphasis in the quar ter -century following Nicaea. T h esacredness a n d tradi t ional character of baptismal formularies does notseem to have excluded the right of the bishop to add and develop, p ro-vided tha t there were no reversal of the tradit ion thereby.

27 T h e p a y m e n t of cash by the banker only takes place when his client hash a n d e d in some bond or security for the money, such as an under takingto repay capital a n d interest under such and such circumstances. Cyrilimplies t ha t the photizomenoi a re likewise unde r an obligation, incurredby the receiving of the creed, for which they must account a t the Day ofJudgement.

28 A joining together of I Tim. 5:21, with 6:13 and 14 of the same Epistle.29 The creed here seems to be pictured as a sum of money which, if it can

be produced intact at the Last Day, will purchase for its holder eternallife.

30 In this lecture Cyril inserts I Tim. 6:15, 16 before his usual concludingformula, making the initial "which" refer not to the Second Comingbut to the "deposit" which the photizomenoi have just received.


LECTURE VI

Of the Monarchy1 of God

The Lection is from the prophecy of Isaiah.2

1. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord JesusChrist"3; for in the thought of God, let the thought of Fatherbe included, so that the glory which we ascribe to the Fatherand the Son with the Holy Spirit may be perfectly free fromdifference.4 For the Father has not one glory and the Sonanother, but their glory is one and the same; since the Son isthe Father's sole-begotten, and when the Father is glorified theSon shares in enjoyment of his glory, and because the Sondraws his glory from the honouring of the Father, and againwhenever the Son is glorified the Father of so excellent a Son isgreatly honoured.

2. Now the mind thinks with great rapidity, but the tongueneeds expressions and a long outpouring of words before itreaches a conclusion. For, in one instant, the eye takes in a vastmultitude of stars, but if anyone should want to discourse onany particular stars, as, for instance, to pick out the morningstar or the evening star, or any single star, he will need to say agood deal. Again in like manner the mind comprehends earthand sea and all the bounds of the world in a flash, but it takesit many words to express what it understands in a twinkling.The example,5 then, that I have adduced is a very strong one,and yet it is weak and inadequate for the purpose in hand.

1 That is, that God is the sole original and final principle of all things. Asa consequence, Newman says, the doctrine of Monarchy means "that theSecond and Third Persons are ever to be referred in our thoughts to theFirst as the Fountain of Godhead."

2 The Lection was Isa. 45:17-25. 3 II Cor. 113.4 Cyril thus expresses what later took classical form in the saying of John

Damascene (Orthodoxfaith, I. 15), that "the Father is the fount and causeof the Son and Holy Spirit." When we think of God as Father, straight-away the Trinity is before the mind. Arius followed the Greek ethnicapproach in which God is indivisible and ultimate reality, to whichconcept the appelation Father applies only as a Name, and the Son,catachrestically so called, is but a created intermediary. This sentenceof Cyril's therefore testifies how fundamentally alien was Arianism to hismind.

5 The thing to be exemplified is that even the simple know, in a flash ofintuition, the meaning of the word God, but to unfold that knowledgein discursive reasoning is the hopeless task of theology.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES 12"J

For what we say about God is not what should be said (for thatis known only to him) but only what human nature takes in,and only what our infirmity can bear. For what we expound isnot what God is, but (and we frankly acknowledge it) the factthat we have no sure knowledge about him; and that is to saythat our chief theological knowledge is confessing that we havenone. Therefore, "magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalthis name together,"6 since one alone is unequal to the task.Rather I should say, if all of us unite for it, it will still be beyondus; and in saying that I do not mean just us who are here, butthat if all the children of the Church throughout the world,both to this day and for all time to come, united to the task, westill should not be able worthily to hymn our Shepherd.7

3. Abraham was a great man and honourable, that is to say,by human standards, but when he looked to meet with God hedeclared frankly and with truth "I am earth and ashes."8 Hedid not say "earth" and stop at that, lest he should name him-self from the first of the elements, but he added "and ashes" toindicate how unenduring and rotten he was. It is as if he said,is there anything less substantial or lighter than ash? For (wemay imagine him saying) make comparison of ash with a house,and then of a house with a city; then of a city with a province,then of a province with the Roman empire, then of the Romanempire with the whole earth as far as its furthest bounds, thenthe whole earth with heaven in whose bosom earth lies. Nowearth has the same ratio to heaven as an axle has to the wholecircumference of a wheel. Then think how that this first heavenwhich we see is smaller than the second, and the second thanthe third, seeing that that is the last named in Scripture: notthat that means there are no more, but only that it is convenientthat we should know so far and no more.9 And if your mind6 Ps. 34:3.7 The choice of this title is dictated by the fact that the Church is the

Lord's flock. If the task of theology is hopeless, so, says Cyril, is theChurch's task of worship. But neither task may be for that reason aban-doned. In what follows, the impossibility and necessity of either task iselaborated. 8 Gen. 18:27.

9 In early Christian writers we meet with a scheme of three heavens, andanother of seven heavens. The two are not necessarily irreconcilable.The first is firmly in accord with the language of Scripture, which speaksof the upper atmosphere, the place of clouds and birds, as heaven, andof a sphere determining the motion of the heavenly bodies, as heaven,and of a heaven beyond this, inhabited by saints and angels, in whichParadise may be sited. So these three heavens might be called the aerial,the aetheriai, and the third heaven. Primitive astronomy suggested that


could see in thought all the heavens, neither would thoseheavens be able to praise God as he deserves, though they rangwith voices louder than thunder. Now if these heavens and allthey contain cannot worthily sing the praises of God, howpossibly can earth and ashes, the least and slightest of existingthings, upraise a worthy hymn to God, "who holds in his handthe circle of the earth, and considers the inhabitants thereof asgrasshoppers."10

4. If any would take in hand to discourse of God, let himfirst expound what are the bounds of the earth. The earth isyour dwelling, and yet you do not know the extent of yourdwellingplace, earth! Howr then can you have any adequatethoughts of its Creator ? You see the stars, but their Maker youdo not see. Then count those you see and after that tell us ofhim whom you do not see, "who telleth the number of thestars and calleth them all by their names."11 Quite recently afurious downpour of rain came little short of flooding us out.Tell me how many drops fell on this city only: or I will not saythe city; tell me, if you can, how many drops an hour struckyour house! But you cannot, and therein see how little is yourstrength. And from that take knowledge of the might of God,for "by him are numbered the drops of rain"12 not only thatcame down then, all over the world, but at any time in history.Or the sun is God's work, and a great work, too, though smallenough compared with the sky. First have a good look at thesun, and when you have done that get busy on God! "Seek notthat which is deeper than thou, and that which is stronger thanthou search not out; but what is appointed thee, that con-sider." ^

5. But some one will ask, If the divine Being is incompre-hensible, what is the good of the things you have been saying?

the second heaven was the space between two vast spheres concentricwith the earth, and this is the ground of Cyril's axle-and-wheel compari-son. It was natural to go on to picture the third heaven as a still greaterconcentric sphere. But Gregory of Nyssa (On the six days of Creation, Bk. I,towards the end) expresses the reaction of philosophic Christians to thisnotion, by arguing, on the ground of II Cor. 12:2-4, that this thirdheaven is incorporeal. But no early Christian writer followed up thisthought to the extent of proposing a concept of heaven divorced fromall notion of spatiality. Many Christians accepted, no doubt ultimatelyfrom Jewish and oriental sources, a belief that there are seven heavens,and generally supposed them concentric with earth. Cyril seems readyto accept this idea, and the more so because it falls in with his argumentof things that are greater and greater as they recede from our knowledge.

10 Isa. 40:22. n Ps. 147:4. 12 Job 36:27. 13 Ecclus. 3:21, 22.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES I2g

Come now, am I not to take a reasonable drink because Icannot drink the river dry ? Of course I cannot bear to fix mygaze upon the sun in his strength. But is that any reason for notglancing up at him if I need ? Or supposing that I were to gointo a huge garden such that I could not possibly eat all thefruit on the trees, would you have me leave it still hungry? Ipraise and glorify our Maker, seeing that "Let everything thathath breath praise the Lord"14 is a divine command. I am nowtrying to glorify the Master, not to expound his nature, for Iknow quite well that I shall fall far short even of glorifying himas he deserves. Nevertheless I hold it to be a religious duty atleast to make the attempt. For the Lord Jesus comforts me forfor my insufficiency by saying "No man hath seen God at anytime."15

6. What then, someone asks, does not Scripture say "theangels of the little ones always behold the face of my Fatherwhich is in heaven?"16 Truly it does, but the angels do not seeGod as he is, but only as far as they can, being what they are.For the same Jesus says, "not that any hath seen the Father,save he which is of God: he hath seen the Father."17 Angels seein the measure of their capacity, and archangels up to theirpower. Thrones and dominations have greater vision than those,but still less than the reality.18 Only the Holy Ghost, togetherwith the Son, has a true vision of God, "searcheth all things,and knoweth even the deep things of God,"19 as also theonly-begotten Son has essential knowledge of the Father,together with the Holy Spirit: as he says "neither knowethanyone the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever theSon will reveal him."20 For he has the essential vision, andreveals God through the Spirit according to each man'scapacity.21 And this is because the only-begotten Son is, withthe Holy Spirit, sharer in the Father's Godhead. He whose

n p s . 150:6.15 John 1:18, where, however, the words directly form part of the testimony

of John.16 Matt. 18:10. 17 John 6:46.is Arius, in his Thalia had placed the Son of God within this series, so

that the final clauses applied to him. By placing the Holy Spirit aswell as the Son out of this series, Cyril not only severs himself from theArians, but, by anticipation as we may say, from the Macedoniansalso.

19 I Cor. 2:10. 20 Matt. 11 .-27.21 The limiting factor is not the Spirit's inability to reveal but our inability

to receive.9—c.j.

I3O CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

passionless begetting was before the ages began22 knows hisBegetter, and he who begat knows him who was begotten.Therefore, when angels are ignorant (for the only-begotten, aswe said, reveals to each in the measure of his capacity, throughthe Holy Spirit),23 let no man be ashamed to avow his ignorance.I am now speaking, and all of us sometimes speak. And yet weare incapable of saying how we speak. How then can we dis-course of the Giver of the faculty of speech ? I have a soul andcannot tell what is the nature of the soul. How then shall I beable to describe the Dispenser of souls ?

7. This is sufficient by itself for our religion, that we knowthat we have a God, that we have one God, a God who is,24 aGod ever existing and ever self-existent, with none from whomhe was begotten, with none mightier than himself, whom nonewill follow by taking from him his kingdom, of many names, all-powerful, and of singular substance. For the fact that he iscalled good, righteous, almighty, sabaoth,25 does not meananything of variance or difference in him, but that, being oneand the same, he is the source of countless divine activities. Hedoes not exceed in this and come behind in that, but is in allthings his own divine self. He is not less wise because of his

22 Consideration of the variant readings and the awkward grammar of thereceived text suggest that what Cyril said was probably "He who wasbegotten knows his Begetter," and that the qualification of the begettingof the Son as passionless and pre-temporal was introduced into the textat a later stage, when, in the Arian controversy, the orthodox had todefend their doctrine from the consequence drawn by their opponentsfrom the notion of divine generation. This was that, at a point in con-ceptual history, something happened to God; "passionless" does notmean, here, "without sexual passion," but "without God experiencingchange." It is unlikely that this stage of controversial argument was inview at the time of the lecture.

23 So Cyril withdraws from angels any direct or natural knowledge of God,unmediated by the work of the Spirit.

24 The reference is to God's self-revelation in Ex. 3:14. In the Septuagintit appears as "I am that I am," which lent itself, in the mind of Greekreaders, to be regarded as a philosophic definition. The Hebrew textwas certainly not inspired by abstract thought of this kind, but saw inthis declaration the revelation of a living God who will show what heis, and wills. Cyril is not so acutely Hellenized as to be in danger of fallingshort of the Old Testament doctrine of God, although his language andreasoning are Greek.

25 Sabaoth is often coupled, as a title, to the name Jehovah in the OldTestament, and means God of Hosts (primitively, of the armies of Israel).In the Septuagint, the name and title together were rendered KyriosSabaoth, where it appeared as if Kyrios (Lord) was the title and Sabaoththe name. And as such Cyril regards it.


great loving-kindness, but has wisdom in the same degree as hehas loving-kindness. He does not sometimes see and sometimeswink at what he might see, but is all eye, all ear, all mind.26 Heis not as we are, in one thing understanding, in anotherignorant. For to think him so would be blasphemy and anoutrage against the divine Being. God foreknows what willcome to pass. God is holy and almighty, and exceeds all ingoodness, greatness and wisdom. We shall never be able toexpress his shape and form. "Ye have neither heard his voiceat any time, nor seen his shape",27 says the Scripture. WhereforeMoses says to the Israelites, "Take ye therefore good heed untoyourselves: for ye saw no manner of similitude."28 For if it isquite impossible to picture what he is like, the notion of hisBeing will surely be immediate.29

L E C T U R E X

On the Clause "And in one Lord Jesus Christ"

The Lection is from the First Epistle to the Corinthians.1

3. You are to believe "in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God."2 We say "one" Lord Jesus Christ toshow that his sonship is unique. We say "one" to stop anyonedreaming that there could be another. We say "one" lest youshould hear of his work under manifold names and fall into theblasphemous notion that it is the work of a plurality of sons.3

For he is called a door. But you must not think of a wooden26 D r . Gifford, in his notes to this section, calls a t tent ion to the closeness of

Cyril 's expressions to some passages in Irenaeus, Against heresies, whichmakes it likely enough tha t Cyril had read that work. T h e Jerusa lemchurch l ibrary, begun by Alexander, makes it the less surprising tha tCyril should have such learning.

27 John 5:37. 28 Deut. 4:15.29 Moses treats the people as knowing God, and yet insists that they have

seen nothing. Therefore, Cyril argues, they must have a means of im-mediate knowledge. As this knowledge would be endangered by theirtrying to establish knowledge otherwise, it is, as direct and mystical, atrue knowledge, upon which faith should rest before all other. We thusreach the conclusion of the argument commencing in Section 2 above.The rest of Lecture vi is omitted, as also Lectures vn, vm and rx on Godas Father, Almighty, and Creator.

1 The Lection was I Cor. 8:5-9123.2 Two opening sections are omitted for brevity.3 Leading gods and goddesses of Greek paganism were each known under

manifold names, in accordance with their different cult-representations.


door. You must think of a spiritual door that reasons and isalive, and knows all about those that enter. He has the titleway; not as if he were trodden by our feet, but as bearing us onour way to our Father in the heavens. He is called sheep, notas if he were an animal, but to express the fact that he cleansesthe whole world of sins by his precious blood, that he was led"before his shearer"and knew when was the time to be "dumb."4

This sheep is equally called shepherd, and says "I am the goodshepherd."5 By his manhood he is sheep, by his divine loving-kindness he is shepherd. Do you want to be assured that thereare human sheep? The Saviour tells the apostles "Behold I sendyou as sheep in the midst of wolves."6 He is called, again, lion;not of the man-eating kind, but to point out, as it were, by thisname, how royal, immovable, and boldly confident is hisnature. He is called lion also as opposing the lion that we areafraid of, that roars and then swallows up such as are taken in.7

For the Saviour came to tread down our adversary and rescuethose that put their trust in him, not as if he put aside thegentleness that is his by nature, but as the strong "Lion of thetribe of Judah."8 And he is called a stone, not such an inani-mate stone as is quarried by the hands of men, but such a"chief corner-stone" as that "whosoever believeth in him shallnot be ashamed."9

4. He is called Christ,10 not for any unction from human

What was, to the poets, the single divine identity of Zeus, or Athenewas worshipped differently in the various local cult forms. But for thecommon people this was too subtle a thought. For them, Zeus underdifferent names was so many different divinities. It is said that, in ourown times, Italian peasants have supposed Our Lady of A to be a differentbeing from Our Lady of B. For the simple, the local and particular ismost easily grasped. To equate or identify it, on the other hand, withsomething elsewhere, and different in form, presents difficulty. Cyril mayhave had reason to fear something of this sort at Jerusalem, with regardto Christ, worshipped as the divine Babe at Bethlehem, as Sufferer onMount Golgotha, and as King of heaven on the Mount of Olives. Heaccordingly follows Clement of Alexandria in teaching that the differentnames and offices of Christ reflect the variety of our needs, and not anydivision of his Person and nature.

4 I sa .53 :7 . 5 John 10:11. 6 Mat t . 10:16.7 Cyril labours the point that Satan has no might, and can only be an

object of fear to us by deceiving us on this point. Those only whom hedeceives fall into his power.

8 Rev. 5:5. 9 lSa. 28:16.10 Christ means "anointed," and unction appears in the Old Testament as

the means of dedicating to their office kings, priests, and prophets. ForCyril, it always suggests priestly unction, and so our Lord's high-priest-


hands, but from the Father's, as having been anointed foreternal high-priesthood on behalf of men. He is called the dead,not as having gone to "join the majority," like all souls in Hades,but as the one "free among the dead."11 He is called Son ofMan, not as it is said of each one of us that we sprang from earth,but in the context of his "coming in the clouds of heaven"12

to judge both the quick and the dead.13 He is called Lord, butnot in the catachrestic sense in which the title is given to men,but as possessing Lordship by right of nature and for ever.14

He is called Jesus because the name fits him,15 and he has thatappellation in view of the saving medicine he brings. He iscalled Son, not meaning that God promoted him to that dignity,but that he was naturally begotten as Son. Many indeed arethe names of our Saviour. And so, lest the plurality of namesshould suggest to you a plurality of sons, and in view of theheretical error according to which Christ and Jesus are not oneand the same,16 with the door likewise and all the other names,the faith keeps you out of danger by saying "In one Lord JesusChrist": for though the names are many, their bearer is one.

5. It is for the good of each individual that the Saviourcomes in many characters. For to those who need cheering, heproposes himself as vine, while he stands as door before thosewho should be entering. He stands before those who haveprayers to pray, as their mediating high priest. He is sheep,

hood. But Christ's priesthood is, for Cyril, eternal and from the beginning;it is not pictured as commencing with the incarnation. The unction istherefore an expression for something wholly spiritual and divine, wherebythe Son received high-priesthood from and to the Father.

11 Rev. i : i 8andPs . 88:5. 12 Dan. 7:13.13 John 5:27, where the authority of the Son to judge men is based on his

being Son of man, is here used to interpret Dan. 7:14 as primarily con-stituting him Judge of the great assize. Cyril must not, of course, be takenas saying that Jesus is not named Son of man as sharing our earthlynature by incarnation, but as saying that the name has its chief signifi-cance at a higher level. Finally Cyril fetches the exposition of this nameround to support a clause of the creed.

14 W. Bousset's Kyrios Christos (1921) first brought before the modern publicthe difference between the catachrestic and proper use by the ancientsof the epithet Kyrios (Lord). In its proper use it was a divine title. Andthat is what Cyril is saying in this passage.

15 Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua or Jeshua meaning"Jehovah is salvation." So the angel of Matt. 1:21 says "for he shall savehis people from their sins."

w Irenaeus, Against heresies. III. xvi. 8 enumerates Cerinthians, Ebionites,Ophites and Valentinians as distinguishing between Jesus and Christ.Cyril may have the passage in view.


again, to those with sins upon them, to be slain for those sins.He "becomes all things to all men,"17 and yet never changesfrom what he is in his own proper nature. For he goes onpossessing the dignity of sonship that truly resists all change,and at the same time adapts himself to our infirmities as, shallwe say, the very kindest of physicians or as an understandingteacher. He really is Lord, not as having step by step18 attainedto lordship, but as having by nature the dignity of being Lord.He is not called Lord by courtesy as we are, but as being Lordin sheer fact, since he bears sway over all that he has himselfcreated, and the Father wills it so. For if we bear sway, it is overmen of equal status and like passions with ourselves, and oftenover our seniors; and very often a young master rules over oldservants. But the lordship of our Lord Jesus Christ is not likethat, but he is Maker first and Lord second. First he made allthings by the Father's will, and thereafter is Lord of all he made.

6. Christ is Lord, who was born in the city of David.19

Would you be glad to know that Christ is Lord with his Fatherand was so before his incarnation? When I say that so it is, Ido not want you simply to accept it as part of the faith, but toknow how it is proved from the Old Testament Scripture. Lookin the first book, Genesis. God says "Let us make man." Hedoes not say, In my image, but, "In our image."20 And whenAdam had come into being, it says, "And the Lord createdman; in the image of God created he him."21 For it does notrestrict the dignity of Godhead to the Father only, but associ-ates the Son with him in it, to indicate that man was not onlymade by God, but therewith by our Lord Jesus Christ, whohimself is true God. Now the Lord Jesus joins in working what-ever the Father works, and he did so in the matter of Sodom, asthe Scripture says, "And the Lord rained upon Sodom andupon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out ofheaven."22 Again the Lord Jesus appeared to Moses to that

i? I Cor. 9:22.!8 ek procopes, progressively. Cyril's third-century predecessor, Hymenaeus,

had opposed Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, for teaching that Jesus,mere man by origin, attained divine sonship in this way. Cyril was,however, probably aware of the revival by the Arians of a modified formof this doctrine, based on the combination of Phil. 2:9 with Ps. 45:7,in support of the belief that Christ was a creature. If so, he clearly severshimself from them.

w Luke 2:11, a text likely to be very familiar to Jerusalemites, who wouldneed to be reminded that Christ did not begin to be, in the city of David.

20 Gen. 1:26. 21 Gen. 1:27 (Septuagint). 22 Gen. 19:24.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES I35

extent to which Moses was able to behold him; for the Lord iskind and ever adapts himself to our infirmities.

7. That you may know, further, that it is the Lord Jesus thatappeared to Moses,23 listen to Paul's testimony; "they drankof that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock wasChrist."24 And another passage; "by faith Moses forsookEgypt" followed shortly by the words "esteeming the reproachof Christ greater riches than all the treasures in Egypt."25 Itwas Moses that said to him "Show me thyself." (Note that theprophets as well beheld Christ in those days, only in the degreethat each was able.) "Show me thyself, that I may see thee withunderstanding."26 And the Lord replied "There shall no mansee my face and live."27 This was the reason, therefore, that,inasmuch as none could behold the face of Godhead and live,the Lord took him a human face28 that we can look upon andlive. But even this, when he chose to let a small part of its glorybe manifest and "his face did shine as the sun,"29 made thedisciples fall to the ground with fear. Now if his human faceshone, not as he could have made it but as much as thedisciples could bear, and even so they could not endure it, howcould anyone look boldly upon the majesty of God?

The Lord said, It is a great thing, Moses, for which you ask,and I approve your insatiable desire. "And I will do this thingalso that thou hast spoken,"30 only so far as you can bear it."Behold, I will put thee in a cleft of the rock,"31 for seeing thatyou are small, you can lodge in a small space.

8. At this point I ask you to get a very firm hold of what willbe said, with an eye to Jews. My aim is to prove that the LordJesus Christ was then with the Father. Accordingly the Lordsays to Moses, "I will pass before thee with my glory, and willproclaim the name of the Lord before thee."32 Since it is the23 The theory that the Son of God, by some anticipation of incarnation,

was the subject of the theophanies recorded in the Old Testament,appears first in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It was theanti-Jewish polemic that gave point to this teaching. Cyril shows, in theopening of Section 8 below, that the interest of these sections, for him,is that they arm the photizomenoi for argument with Jews.

24 I Cor. 10:4. 25 Heb. 11:26 with the order reversed.26 Ex. 33:13. 27 Ex. 33:20.28 Prosdpon, which could mean an actor's mask, as well as the natural face.

Cyril identifies prosopon with "natural face" at the Transfiguration. Butin the theophany to Moses a masking of glory is related, which Cyrilregards as expressing the same principle of condescension to our weak-ness as in the incarnation (see Note 23).

29 Matt. 17:2. 30 Ex. 33:17. 31 Ex. 33:22. 32 Ex. 33:19.

I36 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

Lord speaking, to what Lord is he referring ? Take note how hewas teaching the religious doctrine regarding Father and Sonin a veiled way. Again these exact words follow, "And theLord descended in the cloud, and stood by him there, andproclaimed the name of the Lord; and the Lord passed beforehim, and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord merciful and gracious,long-suffering, abundant in mercy and true; keeping righteous-ness and showing mercy unto thousands, taking away iniquitiesand transgressions, and sins." In the next verse Moses bowshimself and worships the Lord who was proclaiming theFather, and says to him "Do thou, O Lord, go with us."33

9. There you have a first proof. Now take a second andobvious one. "The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my righthand"34; addressed by a Lord not to his servant but to a Lord,in fact the Lord of all things and Son of him who "put allthings in subjection under him." "For when he saith, Allthings are put under him, it is manifest that he is exceptedwhich did put all things under him," down to "that God maybe all in all."35 The only begotten Son is Lord of all things, buta Son obedient to his Father, who did not grasp at lordship butreceived it naturally from him who gave it willingly. For theSon did not grasp at the gift, nor did the Father grudge it. It isthe Son who says, "All things are delivered unto me of myFather."36 When it says "delivered unto me" it does not mean"I was previously without," but "without depriving the Giver,I guard them well."37

12. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, a wondrous nameobliquely expressed beforehand by the prophets. For the pro-phet Isaiah says, "Behold the Saviour is come nigh thee, havinghis reward."38 Now Jesus, for Jews, means Saviour. That is tosay, the grace of prophecy foresaw that the Jews would beslayers of their Lord, and veiled his name so that they might notbe all ready to conspire against him through knowing clearlyabout him beforehand. Now it was not by men that he wasnamed Jesus evidently, but by an angel who came not with theauthority of an angel, but in the power of divine mission. Andhe said to Joseph, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Andshe shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name

33 Ex. 34:5-9. 34 Ps. 110:1 (Septuagint). 35 1 Cor. 15:27, 28.36 M a t t . 11127, a particular anti -Arian text, so e x p o u n d e d by Cyril.37 Sections 10 and 11 are omit ted for brevity.38 Isa. 6 2 : 1 1 (Septuagint) .


Jesus."39 Straightway also he tells the reason for the name,saying, "for he shall save his people from their sins." I ask you,how could one not yet begotten40 have a people unless heexisted before he was begotten? And this is what the prophetsays, speaking in persona Christi and saying, "From the bowels ofmy mother hath he made mention of my name,"41 because theangel foretold how he should be called Jesus, "and in theshadow of his hand hath he hid me,"42 referring there toHerod's conspiracy.

14. Jews admit that he is Jesus, but never that he is Christ,for which reason the Apostle says, "who is a liar, but he thatdenieth that Jesus is the Christ."43 Now "Christ" means thathe is high priest with priesthood that passes not away. He didnot begin his priestly work in time, nor will another succeed tohis high-priesthood. You heard me on Sunday on this subjectwhen I was preaching at the liturgy44 on the text "After theorder of Melchizedek."45 Jesus did not receive the high-priesthood in a line of descent, or by unction with preparedoil,46 but he received it from the Father before all ages. He is apriest by oath, and is proportionately higher than all others,"for they are priests without an oath, but he with an oath byhim that said, The Lord sware and will not repent."47 It wouldhave sufficed to establish his priesthood simply that the Father39 Matt. 1:20.40 Cyril p robab ly uses " b e g o t t e n " here , in place of conceived, because of

t h e Nicene a n a t h e m a against saying "before he was begotten he didno t exis t ." 41 Isa. 4 9 : 1 .

42 I sa . 4 9 : 2 . For brevity, Section 13 has been omitted.43 I John 2:22.44 T h e Greek Chr is t ian w o r d synaxis, here r ende red " l i t u rgy , " is closely

re la ted to , b u t purpose ly chosen as different from the w o r d synagogue.Both words represent a coming together of people. It is not until sixth-century Pseudo-Dionysius that we meet with the idea that synaxis is agathering to the Lord Jesus, but it connoted the Eucharist with earlierwriters. Socrates (Ecclesiastical History, v. 22) uses the word synaxis forassemblies at Church in Alexandria at which there was preaching, withoutthe Eucharist being celebrated at the time, but this he mentions as anEgyptian peculiarity. That he should use the word, of such a gathering,suggests that he thought of it as an assembly to which the faithful weresolemnly bidden. Thus the readings, and special direction for the com-memoration of saints, and other festivals, was called a Synaxary. Cyrilclearly does not call the gathering to which he is lecturing synaxis, butthat would be because it was not a general assembly of the faithfulsummoned by the bishop, as was the liturgical gathering on Sunday, orother festal occasion. 45 Heb. 5:10.

46 Paraphrasing Hebrews 7:14 and 8:4, "if he were on earth he should notbe a priest." 47 Heb. 7:21.


willed it, but now it is doubly established, the will backed byan oath, "that by two immutable things, in which it wasimpossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation"48

in our faith, wherein we recognize Jesus Christ to be Sonof God.

16. This is Jesus Christ, "who is come, an high-priest ofgood things to come,"49 and with the ungrudging generosity ofhis Godhead he has granted to all of us to bear his name. Forwhereas human sovereigns have some special title of sover-eignty which they keep exclusively from use by other men,Jesus Christ, being Son of God, has deigned to bestow on us thetitle of Christians. But suppose that someone says that thename of Christian is new-fangled and had no currency tillrecently, and that people commonly object to anything new-fangled, because they are not used to it; the prophet has alreadyset that doubt at rest, in saying, "But them which serve me, heshall call by a new name, which shall be blessed upon theearth."50 Let us put to the Jews this question, Do you serve theLord or not? Well then, show us what new name you have.For you have the names of Jews and Israelites in Moses and theother prophets, you brought them back with you from Babylon,and they are your names to this day. So where is your newname? But we have our new name for serving the Lord. It is anew name, but it is that "new name, which shall be blessedupon the earth." It is a name that holds the world in its grip.For Jews belong to a particular country, but Christians obtainas far as earth extends, seeing that it is the name of the only-begotten Son of God that they set forth.51

19. There are, beloved, many true testimonies to Christ. TheFather testifies of the Son from heaven. The Holy Spirittestifies of him by descending bodily in the form of a dove. Thearchangel Gabriel testifies of him in announcing the glad newsto Mary, and the Virgin Mother of God52 bears her witness;

4*s Heb. 6:18. For brevity, Section 15 is omitted.49 Heb. 9:11. so lSa. 65:15, 16 (Septuagint).51 This ingenious argument may be Cyril's own, and belongs to the liveliest

anti-Jewish polemic. We may judge that the Church was not allowedto monopolize the pilgrim-interest at Jersualem without resistance fromthe Jews. Sections 17 and 18 have been omitted for brevity.

52 Theotokos, the word to which Nestorius took exception, and therebyprecipitated the Christological controversy connected with his name. Itis certain that it was a term already consecrated by much more use thanNestorius imagined. On the other hand it was liable after Chalcedoniandays to be introduced by copyists into texts where it had not been. It is


so does the blessed site of the crib. Egypt testifies of him whomit received as its Master53 when he was yet a babe in body.Symeon testifies of him, taking him into his arms and saying"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, accordingto thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thouhast prepared before the face of all people."54 And Anna theprophetess testifies of him, living in most religious chastity thelife of an ascetic. John the Baptist, greatest among prophets andharbinger of the new covenant, and in a sense the personalbond uniting the two Testaments, the Old and New, into one,testified of him. Of rivers, the Jordan is his witness; of seas, thesea of Tiberias. He has witnesses who were blind, were lame,were dead and came to life again. Demons bear him witness,crying "What have we to do with thee, Jesus; we know theewho thou art, the holy one of God."55 Winds, mastered andstilled, bear witness. Five loaves multiplied for five thousandmen bear witness. The sacred wood of the cross, seen to thisday amongst us, and taken hence by those who have receivedportions with faith, to places that now cover almost the wholeworld, bears witness, and the palm tree in the valley56, whichprovided branches to the children of those days who hailedhim. Gethsemane bears witness, to the imagination all buthaunted by the form of Judas, still. This Golgotha, sacred aboveall such places, bears witness by its very look. The most holySepulchre bears witness, and the stone that lies there to thisday. The sun now shining bears witness, that failed, then,during the hour of his saving passion. Darkness bears witness,that lasted then from the sixth to the ninth hour, and the lightthat shined forth again from the ninth hour till evening. TheMount of Olive bears witness, the holy mount whence he ascen-ded to the Father, and the rain-clouds that received from sighttheir Master; so also do the gates of heaven, of which the

more probable than not that Cyril used the title Theotokos of Mary, butthere can be no certainty.

53 Legends of adora t ion received by the infant Jesus as he entered Egyptare present in a pseudo-Matthean Gospel a century younger than Cyril.But such legends are likely to have arisen in Christian Egypt at an earlydate, and Cyril's words look as if he had more in view than canonicalMatt. 2:14; possibly an earlier legendary flight-story than pseudo-Matthew.

54 Luke 2 : 2 9 , 30. 55 M a r k 1:24.56 It appears from the narrative of the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333 that

a palm tree of great age on the road from Bethany to Jerusalem wascredited with having been there at the time of the triumphal entry.


Psalmist said, "Lift up your doors, O ye princes, and be yelift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall comein."57 His former foes bear witness, of whom Blessed Paul isone, for a short while his enemy, for a long while his slave.Twelve apostles bear their witness, not only by their preaching,but by their sufferings and deaths proclaiming the truth.Peter's shadow bears witness, healing the sick in Christ'sname. "Handkerchiefs and aprons"58 bear witness, which, inthose days, wrought similar cures through Paul, in the name ofChrist. Persians and Goths59 and all converts from the nationsbear witness who die for the sake of him whom they never sawwith the eye of flesh. To this day the demons exorcised by thefaithful bear witness.

20. So many are his witnesses,60 and so varied, and there aremany more besides. Can Christ so testified be still refusedcredit ? Well then, if there is any that did not believe, after thislet him believe. And if any believed, let him receive the greaterincrease of faith, putting his trust in our Lord Jesus Christ, andknow whose name he bears. You are called Christian. Becareful of that name. Let not our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son ofGod, be blasphemed on your account, but rather "let your lightso shine before men"61 (by good works), that men may see itand glorify our Father in heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, towhom be the glory both now and for ever, world without end.Amen.

L E C T U R E X I

On the Son of God as true God, only-begotten before all ages> by whomall things were made.

The Lection is from the Epistle to the Hebrews.1

6. Believe, then, in Jesus Christ, Son of the living God. He isonly-begotten as the Gospel says, "For God so loved the worldthat he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth

57 Ps. 24:7 (Septuagint). 58 Acts 19:12.59 The two great nations beyond the imperial frontiers, now partly evan-

gelized.60 The point of the section is that many things the photizomenoi would see

and hear should bring them assurance of their faith.61 Matt. 5:16.1 The Lection was Heb. 1:1-12. The first five sections of the Lecture,

being largely recapitulatory, have been omitted.


in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,"2 and "Hethat believeth on him is not condemned,3 but is passed fromdeath unto life.4 But he that believeth not the Son, shall not seelife, but the wrath of God abideth on him5; because he hathnot believed on the only-begotten Son of God,"6 Of him Johnbore witness saying, "And we beheld his glory, the glory as ofthe only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,"7 andhim the demons trembling hailed, "Let us alone; what havewe to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of the most highGod?"»

7. So, being begotten of the Father, he is Son of God bynature, not by adoption. And "he that loveth him that begat,loveth him also that is begotten of him,"9 while he who sets atnought him who is the begotten insults by implication him whobegat. Now when you hear of God begetting, do not fall a-thinking in corporeal terms, or risk blaspheming by imaginingcorruptible generation. "God is a Spirit."10 Divine generationis spiritual. Bodies are begotten from bodies, and there has to bean interval of time for it to be completed. But time does notcome into the begetting of the Son from the Father. Bodies arebegotten in an imperfect state, but the Son of God was begottenperfect. For what he is now, that has he been timelesslybegotten from the beginning. We are begotten so as to developfrom childishness to rationality. Being man, your first state isimperfect and your advance is by stages. But do not imagineanything of that sort in divine generation, or charge theBegetter with lack of power. For you might charge the Begetterwith lack of power, if the Begotten was first imperfect and thenreached perfection in time; that is if the Begetter did not fullygrant from the beginning what was by supposition grantedafter the lapse of time.11

8. Do not think, therefore, in terms of human generation, aswhen Abraham begat Isaac. For Abraham truly begat Isaac,but what he begat was not the product of his will, but whatanother rendered to him. But when God the Father begat, it was

2 John 3:16. 3 John 3:18. 4 John 5:24.5john3:36. 6John3:i8. 7Johni: i4 .8 Mark 5:7. 9 I John 5:1. 10 John 4:24.

11 This is a new argument against the "adoption" doctrine of Paul ofSamosata, against whom bishop Hymenaeus of Jerusalem had taken thefield. Paul had argued that the Father is honoured by having uniqueGodhead, and by being believed to have divinized the Son of Mary byprokope, or advance in grace. Cyril replies that if God is supposed to needtime to produce a Son thus, the thought is dishonouring to God.


not as unknowing what should be, or only after some delibera-tion.12 It would be the extreme of blasphemy to say that Goddid not know whom he was begetting; nor would it be any lessblasphemous to say that the Father became Father only afterdeliberating. For God was not at first childless, and then afterlapse of time became Father, but he had his Son from alleternity, not begetting him as men beget men, but as he aloneknows who begat him true God before all ages.

9. The Father, being himself true God begat a Son like tohimself, true God.13 Do not compare it with teachers "beget-ting" disciples, or as Paul says to some of his, "For in ChristJesus I begat you through the gospel."14 For in such cases,someone who was not by nature a "son," becomes such bydiscipleship. But the Son of God is Son by nature, true Son.You photizomenoi are now becoming sons of God, but do notliken Christ's Sonship to that. For your sonship is one ofadoption, by grace, as it is written, "But as many as receivedhim, to them gave he the right to become children of God, evento them that believe on his name; which were begotten not ofblood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but ofGod."15 We indeed were begotten "of water and of the Spirit,"16

but it was not thus that the Son was begotten of the Father, whoat the time of his baptism addressed him, saying "This is mySon."17 He did not say, This man is now become my Son, but"This is my Son," to show that he was Son prior to anythingbaptism might bring about.

10. Neither did the Father beget the Son in the way inwhich the human mind begets speech.18 For mind is somethingpermanently present in us, but speech, spoken and dispersed in12 The Arians posed the dilemma: either God begat because he could not

help himself and without knowing the outcome, or he thought first andbegat deliberately. In the latter case, "there was when the Son was not."Cyril parries this argument by indicating a number of ways in which theanalogy of begetting cannot be pressed, in theology, and that the Ariandilemma is based on such an illegitimate pressing of analogy.

13 It is impossible to find a nuance of difference between the substance ofthis confession and the Nicene faith.

14 I Cor. 4:15. 15 John 1:12, 13. 16 John 3:5. 17 Matt, 3:17.is This analogy for the divine generation had a great vogue with the second

century apologists, and is given in its crudest form in Theophilus ofAntioch, To Autolycus. It was a very effective means of commending tothe Greeks the Christian claim that one known in recent history isnevertheless the eternal revelation of God. But by the time of Cyril ithad become clear what error could follow from pressing this analogy toofar.


the air, perishes. For we know Christ to have been begotten,not as an uttered word, but as indwelling19 reason, and living,not spoken with lips and dispersed, but eternally and ineffablybegotten of the Father, and come into being as a Person,20

that is to say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God."21 The Word is seatedat the Father's right hand, understanding his will, and creatingthe world at his behest, a Word descending and ascending.22

For uttered speech neither descends nor ascends. He is Wordthat speaks and says, "The things which I have seen with myFather, these I speak."23 He is authoritative Word, reigningover all, for "the Father hath committed all things unto theSon."2*

11. So the way in which the Father begat the Son is notattainable by human analogy, but is one that he alone knows.For we do not profess to say how he begat him, but we affirmthat it was not in this or that manner. And our ignorance ofthe way in which the Father begat the Son is shared by everycreated being. "Speak to the earth, if perchance it may teachthee,"25 and then go on to question everything that is on theearth, but it will not be able to tell; for the earth cannot ex-pound the being of its own Potter that fashions it. Earth is notalone in ignorance; the sun knows no more. For it was the fourthday when the sun was created, and it is ignorant of all thathappened in the first three days; and a creature that does notknow what happened in the three days before it existed willnot be able to expound the Creator. Heaven will not explain it,for "the heaven also was like smoke established"26 by Christ at19 Enkypostatos, h a v i n g real be ing wi th in a n o t h e r existent .20 Hypostasis, already, among the Syrians and Palestinians, beginning to

be used of the Persons of the Trinity, in distinction from ousia, the sharedreality of Godhead wherein the Three are one God.

21 John 1; 1.22 Cyril m a y have before his mind Isa. 5 5 : 8 - 1 1 , wi th its notion of God's

W o r d coming d o w n into the world to cause his will to be done, and then" repor t ing b a c k " the complet ion of its mission. In the later pa r t of thesection, Cyril is reserving, unde r safeguards, the analogy which he hasbegun by seeming to reject.

23 John 8:38. 24 John 5:22.25 Cyril perhaps cites Job 12:8 as if it was said ironically. Zohar has under-

taken to expound the wisdom of God, and Job replies in sarcasm that thetruth about God is so obvious that earth and animals can expound it.Job means that it is impossibly difficult to understand the mind of God,and Cyril takes his cue from this to place theology above the comprehen-sion of all creatures.

26 Isa. 51:6 (Septuagint).


the Father's behest. The heavens of heavens will not declare it;the waters that are above the heavens will not tell of it. Whythen should you, good sir, be downhearted because you do notknow what even the heavens do not know? It is not only theheavens that are ignorant of that begetting, but the wholeorder of angels as well. For suppose someone (we must imagineit possible) ascended to the first heaven and beheld the life ofthe angels there; suppose he then approached them with thequestion how God begat his own Son. They would probablyanswer, There are greater and higher beings than us. Ask them.Ascend to the second heaven, or the third. Make contact, ifyou can, with thrones and dominations, with principalities andpowers. For if any man could make contact with them (a mereimpossibility), they would decline him an answer, for they donot know.

12. I am ever amazed at the inquisitiveness of those rash folkwho fall into blasphemy by their prosecution, as they think it,of religion.27 For they do not know thrones and dominations,the works of Christ; they do not know principalities andpowers; and yet they undertake to pry into the Creator him-self. First tell me, rash man, the difference between a throneand a domination, and then go into details about Christ! Tellme what a principality is, what a power is, what a virtue is,what an angel is, and then tell me all about their Maker "bywhom all things were made."28 But you will not ask thrones ordominations; say, rather, that you cannot. What but the HolyGhost, whose words are Sacred Scripture, "knoweth the deepthings of God.5'29 But the Holy Spirit himself has not spoken inthe Scriptures about the Son's generation from the Father. Whythen busy yourself over something that the Holy Spirit has notexpressed in the Scriptures? You do not know all the Scrip-tures, and yet must get to know what is not in the Scriptures!The sacred Scriptures give rise to enough questions, in allconscience. We do not grasp what they contain. Why then27 Fourth-century Hellenism developed a vogue for disputation that can

hardly have been equalled, still less surpassed, in any age. The theologicalcontroversy in the Christian Church of the fourth century offered materialfor this passion to exercise itself upon, and the most transcendent subjectsbecame the theme, not of tried theologians but of the laity. Gregory ofNyssa, in his Oration on the Godhead of the Son and Holy Spirit, describes thepassion for theological argument among the petite bourgeoisie. "Ask" thesmall tradesman "about pence, and he will discuss the generate and theingenerate." Cyril seems to express a somewhat similar experience.

28 John i .-3. 29 I Cor. 2:10.


should we be over-curious about what is beyond them? It isenough for us that we should know that God has begotten oneonly Son.30

22. I want now to tell you something that will give anexample of what I have been saying, though not a very closeone, as I am aware. For how can one find a close example invisible things to represent the might of God ? Nevertheless, letthe feeble give the feeble this feeble analogy. Once upon a timethere was an emperor who had a son also an emperor, andwanted to build a city. So he proposed the building of the cityto this son who was his colleague in the purple, and he took thespecification and carried the work to completion. In likemanner, when the Father would have the world created theSon created it at the Father's behest, so that the initiativemight safeguard the Father's sovereignty, and at the same timethe Son might have all authority over his own creatures, sothat the Father might have mastery over his own works andthe Son rule over what was created not by anyone else but byhimself. For the world was not, as I said, created by angels,31

but by the Son who was begotten before all ages; as it is said"by whom all things were made" so that there is nothingexcepted from his making. What I have now said by the graceof Christ will suffice.

23. Let us come back to the clause of the creed and bringthis lecture to an end. Christ made all things, even to angelsand archangels, dominations and thrones, not because theFather lacked might to create by himself what things were tobe created, but because he would have his Son bear the ruleover the things he had made. And he, the Father, provided tohis Son the pattern of the things to be created. So the only-begotten says, in honour of his Father, "The Son can do nothingof himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for whatsoeverthings he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise,"32 andagain "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"33 showingthat there is no contrariety in their working. "For all mineare thine, and thine mine,"34 says our Lord in the Gospels.30 The popular taste for theological dogma no doubt explains the length

at which Cyril treats the theme of "the generate and the ingenerate" inthis lecture; for which reason Sections 13 to 21 inclusive have beenomitted.

31 The creation of the world was ascribed to angels in many types of Gnosticcosmology, such as those of Menander, Satornilus, Basilides and Carpo-crates. But Cyril shows no real anxiety about this form of heresy.

32john5:ig. 33 j o hn5: i7 . 34john 17:10.10—c.j.


This truth can be clearly known from the Old as well as theNew Testament. For the speaker of "Let us make man in ourimage and after our likeness,"35 was, without question, speakingto someone present. But the Psalmist expressed it most clearlyof all, saying, "He spake, and they were made; he commanded,and they were created,"36 where we see the Father commandingand speaking, while the Son is creating the world according tothe Father's behest. This is mystically37 expressed by Job,"which alone spread out the heaven, and walked upon the seaas on firm ground,"38 whereby he indicates to the thoughtfulthat he who in his incarnation walked on the sea is identicalwith the Maker of the heavens in former time. Later Godaddresses Job, "Or didst thou take earth, and fashion clay intoa living being, and set it with the power of speech upon theearth?",39 and presently "Have the gates of death opened tothee with fear, and did the door-keepers of hell tremble at thesight of thee?",40 letting us know that he who for man's sakedescended into hell is identical with man's Maker from theclay in the beginning.

24. So Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is also Maker ofthe world, for "he was in the world and the world was made byhim," and "he came to his own"41 as the Gospel teaches us.Christ made at the Father's behest not only the world of sense,but also the invisible order. For, according to the apostle, "inhim were all things created that are in the heavens, and thatare upon earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones, ordominations, or principalities or powers: all things have beencreated by him and for him; and he is before all, and in him allthings consist."42 And if you mention the very ages, Jesus Christis their maker at the Father's behest, for "in these last days Godspake unto us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of allthings, by whom also he made the ages,"43 to whom be glory,

35 Gen. 1:26. 36 p s . 148:5.37 That is, in such a wise that only an initiate would discern his meaning.

Cyril follows Origen in supposing that the exact phrasing of the OldTestament (which meant, for him, the Septuagint text as he knew it)was often guided by the Holy Spirit to bear a meaning which would onlybe seen by those who knew the revelation in Christ. Job's primary andconscious meaning concerned Jehovah. Cyril finds something proved byhis words which Job had not in mind, and this gives a mystic or spiritualexegesis of the text, in Cyril's eyes, because the Holy Spirit caused Jobto use words referable prophetically to Christ.

38 Job 9:8. 39 Job 38:14. 40 Job 38:17.4i John 1:10, 11. 42 Col. 1:16, 17. 43 Heb. 1:2.


honour, might, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, now andever, world without end. Amen.

L E C T U R E XV

On the clause, "He will come in glory to judge the quick and the deady

whose kingdom shall have no end" and concerning Antichrist1

The Lection is from Daniel.2

1. What we proclaim is not one single coming of Christ, buta second as well, much fairer than the first. For the first pre-sented a demonstration of long-suffering, but the second wearsthe crown of the Kingdom of God. Most things about our LordJesus Christ are twofold. His birth is twofold, once of Godbefore the ages, and once of the Virgin in the end of the ages.Twice he comes down, once all unseen like dew on a fleece,3

and a second time still future and manifest. When first he came,he was swaddled in a manger. When next he comes he will"clothe himself with light as with a garment."4 At his firstcoming "he endured the cross, despising the shame"5; at hissecond, he comes surrounded with glory and escorted by hostsof angels. We do not therefore simply rest upon Christ's firstcoming, by itself, but let us look forward also to his second; andas we say of his former coming, "Blessed is he that cometh inthe name of the Lord,"6 so also we will say the same words again

1 The Lectures xn, xm, xiv are on the historical facts of Christ's incarnatelife, passion, and risen glory. Anti-Jewish polemic determines their shape.Cyril goes over the Gospel history, but finds it in every detail preiiguredin the Old Testament. These lectures have been omitted for brevity.The sequel comes in Lecture xv, where, without the fulfilment beforehis eyes, Cyril builds up an eschatology in which, while Daniel is hisleading document, many other texts are interpreted prophetically. Inthis lecture we see how a mid-fourth-century churchman looked roundhim, and looked forward.

2 The Lection was Dan. 7:13-27.3 This is a conflation of Ps. 72:6 (in the Septuagint, "He shall come down

like rain upon a fleece") with the first sign of Gideon, Judg. 6:37, thenatural marvel of dew on a fleece, coming all unseen. Gideon's secondsign, of the dry fleece and wet ground, departs from nature. Origen hadan ingenious allegorical interpretation of the two signs of Gideon (seeHomily viii. 4 on Judges), and Cyril may follow suit by taking them asprefiguring the two Advents. He has already used Ps. 72:6 in LectureXII. 9 as prophesying the incarnation, the fleece being the flesh.

* Ps. 104:2. 5 Heb. 12:2.* Matt. 21:9. (The Palm Sunday greeting.)


at his second coming, that we may meet our Master in companywith angels and say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name ofthe Lord"7 as we worship him. The Saviour comes again, butnot to be judged again, for he will pass judgement on those whopassed judgement on him, and he who aforetime kept silenceas they judged him now reminds those lawless men who didtheir outrageous deeds to him upon the cross, and says "Thesethings hast thou done, and I kept silence."8 He adaptedhimself when he came then, and taught men by persuasion,but this time it is they who will be forced to bow to his rule,whether they will or no.

2. These are the words of the prophet Malachi concerningthese two comings; "And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenlycome to his temple" (that is the first coming) "and the messen-ger of the covenant whom ye delight in. Behold he shall come,even the Lord almighty; but who may abide the day of hiscoming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ? for he is likea refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap: and he shall sit as a refinerand purifier of silver."9 And a verse or two afterwards we get theLord himself speaking; "And I will come near you to judge-ment: and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, andagainst the adulterers, and against the false swearers"10 and soforth. It is in view of this that Paul forewarns us, saying "If anyman build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood,hay, stubble; everyman's work shall be made manifest; for theday shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire."11

For Paul also has signified to us that there are these two comings,in his Epistle to Titus where he says, "The grace of God ourSaviour hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denyingungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously,and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope,and the glorious appearing of the great God and our SaviourJesus Christ."12 You note how he acknowledges with thanks-giving the first coming and that we look for a second. And sothe phrase of the creed that I have professed, and is nowcommitted to you13 teaches belief in him who "ascended into

1 Matt. 23:39. (Greeting Christ, come to judge Jerusalem.)8 Ps. 50:21. 9 Mai. 3:1-3. 10 Mai. 3:5.

n I Cor. 3:12. 12 Titus 2:11.13 The baptismal creed of Jerusalem was committed to the photizomenoi at

the fifth lecture. But from this passage, and a later (Lecture xvm. 21),it would appear that, from the fifth lecture on, Cyril repeated, and madethem repeat, the part of the creed that he was to expound. The clause,"whose kingdom shall have no end," was not in the Symbol of Nicaea,


the heavens and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, andwill come again with glory to judge both the quick and thedead: whose kingdom shall have no end."

3. So, our Lord Jesus Christ comes from heaven, and comeswith glory at the last day to bring this world to its close. Forthis world will accomplish its course, and the world that oncecame into being is hereafter to be renewed.14 For seeing thatcorruption, theft, adultery and every form of sin has beenpoured out on the earth, and in the world fresh blood has beer/ever mingled with previous blood,* 5 this astonishing habitationfilled with iniquity is not to last. This world passes away thatthe fairer world may be revealed. Now would you have thisproved by the express words of Scripture ? Listen to these fromIsaiah: "And the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll;and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from thevine, and as a falling fig from the fig-tree."16 The Gospel alsosays, "The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not giveher light, and the stars shall fall from heaven."17 Do not let usgrieve as if we only were to die. Stars perish also, and it maywell be that they too are revived.18 Now the Lord will "roll upthe heavens,"19 not for their destruction, but to raise them upagain more fair. Listen to these prophetic words of David;"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of theearth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they shallperish, but thou remainest."20 There! someone will say, hesays explicitly that they "shall perish." Listen to me. This is

or in the Roman baptismal creed. As appears later in this lecture, itwas valued as excluding the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra. It mighthave been added for this express purpose, but equally may be older thanhis heresy.

14 Cyril thus excludes belief that the material universe will be annihilated.He is not a millennarian, but presumably thinks of the regenerateduniverse as forming part of heaven, with which it is already, in his mind,spatially related, but it will then be in perfect and eternal union with it.

15 Paraphrased from Hos. 4:2. 16 Isa. 34:4. 17 Matt. 24:29.is There was an ancient and widespread Hellenic belief that the stars were

living beings. Philo accepted it, and supposed them to be holy angels.Origen was influenced by Job 25:5, and by his theory of the purgationof rational beings, to think them morally imperfect beings and in fact tobe like souls enclosed in fiery bodies. Jerome, in his attack on Cyril'ssuccessor John, plainly insinuates that John probably believes as Origenbelieved, and we may safely gather from this passage that Cyril tendedto accept Origen's account of the stars {On first principles, I. vii. 2, 3).

19 Cyril seems to understand this of the first heaven, the place of the stars,which now shares in imperfection, and is to take part in final regenerationin company with the universe beneath it. 20 Ps. 102:25, 26,

I5O CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

how you must understand the words "shall perish," and it isclear from the context; "and they all shall wax old as doth agarment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and theyshall be changed." For it is just as when one speaks of a man"perishing," as in the text "The righteous perisheth, and noman layeth it to heart."21 Now this is said in full expectationthat he will rise again. And in like manner we look for a sort ofresurrection of the heavens also. "The sun shall be turned intodarkness, and the moon into blood."22 Now let those who havecome to us from the Manichees be admonished and cease tothink the lights of heaven divine, nor let them blasphemouslysuppose that this sun that "shall be turned into darkness" isChrist.23 Again, listen to our Lord's own words, "Heaven andearth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."24

So you see that the creatures are of a different level from theMaster's words.

21 Isa. 57:1. 22 Joel 2:31.23 T h e Manichees did not identify the sun with Christ, though they seem

to have m a d e it the chief of his works for the process of salvation. Cer-tainly, the notion tha t " t h e sun shall be turned into darkness" would haveseemed to them blasphemous. But we cannot infer from this sentence tha tCyril knew that he had ex-Manichees among the photizomenoi. His ideason Manicheeism are mostly derived from the then recent work of Hege-monius called the Disputation of Archelaus with Manes, a Christ ian polemicalwri t ing which offers a n unspar ing parody of Manicheeism. In Lecturevi . 32, Cyril gives (at second hand) a single piece of information gainedfrom persons who had frequented the Manichees. But h a d he been indirect contact with converts from Manicheeism, his information must havebeen much better than it appears to be. T h e profession of Manicheeismwas punishable unde r Constant ine and Constantius, with the result tha tthere were feigned conversions from it, and people concealed the facttha t they had had to do with it. W e do best therefore to take this sentenceas an oratorical device to influence the hearers to abhor Manicheeism.T h e difficulty which the church leaders had in combat t ing tha t heresywas the elusiveness of its p ropaganda . T h e pa r t of the sun, in M a n i c h e a nsoteriology, was to work upon the moon, which received the light-particles corning from the souls of those who sought to be purged fromthe evil of the world. T h e sun's power effected the final purifica. on ofthese particles in the moon, and the moon waned because the purifiedlight passed thence to its final abode in the Milky W a y . Jesus Christ ,according to Man i , who claimed to be his final apostle, was the heavenlypower who created this mechanism of salvation, and in later days appearedamong men to give the knowledge of its use. T h e Manichee faith wasso at tached to the visible phenomena that it was not wholly unjust to saythat their Christ was the sun. W h a t they borrowed from Chris ' iani tydid not ever include its authent ic principles, which were, in fact, in*compat ible with those of M a n i .

24 M a t t . 24 :35 . Cyril 's deduct ion from this text is his best refutation of M a n i .

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES I5I

4. So, in short, visible things will pass away and be replacedby a fairer order for which we look. But let none start investiga-ting to find out when. For our Lord says, "It is not for you toknow the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put inhis own power."25 Be neither rash enough to venture an opinionwhen these things will come to pass, nor careless enough to goto sleep. For the Lord says, "Watch, for in such an hour as yethink not the Son of man cometh."26 However, we need toknow the signs of the coming of the end, and we are to look forChrist, or we shall either die disappointed or be led astray bythat false Antichrist. For that reason the apostles were provi-dentially moved, by the will of God, to approach the teacher oftruth and say, "Tell us, when shall these things be, and whatshall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world."27

In other words, we look for thy coming again. But "Satan istransformed into an angel of light."28 So assure us againstworshipping anyone in place of thee. He, then, opened hisdivine and blessed mouth and said, "Take heed that no mandeceive you."29 Now you are his hearers today, and behold him,in a way, with the eyes of your mind. Then listen to himsaying to you these same words, "Take heed that no mandeceive you." That saying exhorts you all to heed what it says.We are not, you see, dealing so much with a history of pastevents, as with a prophecy of things to come, which are surelyon the way. And that is no prophecy of mine (who am allunworthy) but of Scripture, whence I am drawing out anddeclaring to you the signs. Take you note what things havealready happened and what things have still to come, and so beon your guard.

5. Take heed that no man deceive you "for many shall comein my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many."This has in part happened already, for Simon Magus,Menander,30 and some others of the godless heretics made thisclaim. Others will also make it, either in our days, or after weare gone.

6. That is one sign: now another. "And ye shall hear ofwars and rumours of wars."31 Well, and are not the Persiansfighting the Romans for Mesopotamia? Is not "nation rising

25 Acts 1:7. 26 Matt. 24:44. 27 Matt. 24:3. 28 u Cor. 11:14.29 Matt. 24:4. For our sakes, Cyril implies, the apostles were impelled to

ask this question.30 Cyril is following Irenaeus in making Simon and Menander claim to be

Christ. 31 Matt. 24:6.


against nation, and kingdom against kingdom?"32 "And thereshall be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in diverseplaces."33 These are things that have already come to pass. Thetext continues, "And fearful sights from heaven, and mightystorms."34 So he warns "Watch therefore, for ye know notwhat hour your Lord doth come."35

7. But we seek a sign of the Lord's coming that touches us?We, as members of the Church seek a sign within the Church ?Well, the Saviour says, "And then shall many be offended, andshall betray one another, and shall hate one another."36 If youhear of bishops taking the field against bishops,37 of clergystriving with clergy, and of lay people assaulting other laypeople, even to the shedding of blood,38 do not distress your-selves. You see, it has been foretold in Scripture. So do not be32 The death of Constantine had been signal for the Persian king to attempt

to recover the land and cities held by the Romans beyond the Euphrates.Constantius obtained a truce in 350, which enabled him presently todefeat the western usurper Magnentius, and consolidate his hold uponthe empire. But in early 350 it was still true that the Persians were fightingthe Romans for Mesopotamia. By Lent 350, the news of the death ofConstans at the hands of Magnentius must have been known in the east,while the truce with the Persians would not have been known. Thus, atthis time, not only was "nation rising against nation" (Persians againstRomans), but, within the empire, "kingdom was rising against kingdom,"(Magnentius against Gonstans, and, by sure implication, Gonstantiusagainst Magnentius), satisfying in full the prediction of Matt. 24: 7.

33 Matt. 24:7 continued.34 Luke 21:11, but with "storms" instead of "signs."35 Matt. 24:42. 36 Matt. 24:10.37 During the decade A.D. 340-350, while Gonstans ruled the western empire

and Constantius was preoccupied in resisting the Persians, the westernepiscopate had used political pressure to impose its will upon the bishopsof the east, especially in forcing the restoration of Athanasius, and otherbishops deposed by eastern synods. As Cyril was speaking, this processwas about to be reversed, and as Constantius became sole autocrat, afterhis overthrow of Magnentius, the leaders of the eastern episcopate movedand abetted Constantius in the humiliation of the Roman bishop andhis western colleagues. Cyril may have attended Maxim us to the synod ofTyre, and witnessed there the ferocity displayed in the conflict ofEusebians and Athanasians.

w The same decade, 340-350, had been marked, at Constantinople, by asuccession of popular risings, for or against bishop Paul, in which ageneral was murdered and large numbers of soldiers and citizens losttheir lives. Similar scenes had been witnessed in Alexandria. No doubtthe attempt of the secular government to impose its will upon the free-dom of religion gave excuse and cover for subversive elements of thepopulation to overthrow public order. But there can be no doubt thatreligious fanaticism played a leading part in causing these melancholydisorders.


preoccupied with what is happening, but keep your mind onwhat Scripture says. Suppose that I, who am now teaching you,fell from grace: do not you share my ruin. On the contrary, it isquite right for a hearer to be better than his teacher, and forthe last comer to be the first, seeing that the Master takes onworkers at the eleventh hour. Considering that treacheryfound its way into the apostolate, are you surprised to discoveramong bishops hatred of their brethren? This sign is notconcerned only with the hierarchy, however, but with the laypeople as well. For the Lord says, "And because iniquity shallabound, the love of many shall wax cold."39 I ask if anyonepresent can boast of his unfeigned love of his neighbour. Is itnot often the case that lips kiss, face smiles, yes, and eyes lightup, when the heart is devising some treason, and speaks peacewhile plotting evil ?

8. You have also this sign, "And this gospel of the kingdomshall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nationsand then shall the end come."40 And, as we can see, practicallythe whole world has been filled with the teaching aboutChrist.41

9. And when this has been completed, what happens? Ourtext goes on, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination ofdesolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holyplace (who so readeth, let him understand),"42 and a littlelater, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ,or, there, believe it not."43 The stage of hatred between brethrengives place to the coming of Antichrist.44 The devil prepares

39 Matt. 24:12. 40 Matt. 24:14.41 To a Jerusalem congregation, the world-wide spread of the faith was

manifest in the persons of the pilgrims who came thither. At the time ofthis lecture, Easter was approaching, and Christian strangers were nodoubt arriving in the city daily, so as to drive home the point that Cyrilis here making. The map of the distribution of churches of which we haveclear evidence, drawn by Carl Pieper (Dusseldorf) under the title OrbisChristianus saec, i—v, shows that in the days of Cyril churches were foundfrom Britain, up the Rhine and along the further side of the Danube,throughout the Mediterranean lands, from the Atlantic coast of Portugal,and the Straits of Gibraltar, to Egypt and up the Nile to Abyssinia; fromGeorgia to the Persian Gulf, southwards, and eastwards beyond theCaspian, to Afghanistan. Of known lands, that left only India, Russiaand the Baltic countries wholly unevangelized. Jerome, Ep. xlvi adMarcellam, speaks of pilgrims from Armenia, Persia, India, Ethiopia,and nearer lands.

« Matt. 24:15. 43 Matt. 24:23.44 The experience of Israel in the period between the Testaments gave rise

to the expectation that final deliverance would only come to "the saints


the way by making divisions among the people so that Anti-christ may have a better reception. God grant that none herenor of the servants of Christ elsewhere may desert to theenemy! The Apostle gave a clear sign, when writing on thissubject, and saying, "For that day shall not come, except therecome a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, theson of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above allthat is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as Godsitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told youthese things? And now ye know what withholdeth, that hemight be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity dothalready work, only he who now letteth will let, until he betaken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed,whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, andshall destroy with the brightness of his coming; even him whosecoming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signsand lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteous-ness in them that perish."45 Such is Paul's account. And we

of the Most High" after they had endured a supreme trial from an op-pressor who would embody opposition to the God of Israel. Then Godwould destroy the foe, and the golden age would come in. The peopleof the primitive Church were imbued with this idea. But Paul, in hisSecond Epistle to the Thessalonians, while accepting the principle ofthis expectation, gave the notion a fresh shape. The foe must be in everyway the antithesis of Jesus Christ, a seducer, given to every form of moraliniquity, while blasphemously claiming to be divine. Under such an one,the true people of God, the Church, would experience their supreme trial,and in that trial the Lord would come again. W. Bousset, in Antichrist(English translation, 1893), traced the way in which Christians continuallytried to set the Pauline expectation against events of their own times. Heshows that in the reign of Constans a speculation arose that Constanswould go to Jerusalem and offer the empire to God, and that thenAntichrist would come. This fact makes it the less surprising that Cyrilshould show such interest in "the signs of the times." Typically, he trieshere also to base his teaching wholly upon Scripture. But he has found itimpossible to think of Antichrist otherwise than in relation to the Romanempire, and so produces a picture of the last days that is all his own. Ata moment when Church and state are paralysed by disunity, he says,Antichrist will first restore unity to the state. Then he will attach allJewry to his person, in that he will be accepted as Messiah. Havingobtained such an ascendency as no previous emperor ever had, he willreveal himself in his true colours, and the Church will undergo its finaltrial till rescued by the second coming of the Saviour. The evils againstwhich Cyril thus strove to strengthen the resistance of his hearers wereaccordingly those which they were likely to meet, if in less ideal intensity,under the autocracy of Constantius.

43 II Thess. 2:3-10.


have reached the "falling away." Men, that is, have fallenaway from the right faith. Some proclaim the identity of Fatherand Son.46 Others dare to assert that Christ is to be held to havebeen in some way brought into being out of non-existence.47

And formerly heretics were quite evident, but now the church isfull of masked heretics. For men have deserted the truth andwant to have their ears tickled.48 Make a plausible case andeveryone is ready to listen to you. Talk of changing one's life,and everyone makes off. The majority have fallen away fromthe sound doctrines, and are readier to choose what is bad thanto prefer what is good. So there you have the "falling away,"and the coming of the enemy is to be looked for next. Meanwhilehe has begun to send out his forerunners here and there, sothat the spoil may be all ready for him when he comes. There-fore, brethren, look to yourselves. Have care of your souls. TheChurch now testifies to you before the living God, and recountsto you the facts about Antichrist before they come to pass.Whether that will be in your time we do not know, or whetherit will be after your time, we do not know. What matters isthat you should know these things and be on your guard.

10. The true Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, will notcome on earth again. If some visionary appears in the desert,do not go out to him. "If any man shall say unto you, Lo, hereis Christ, or there; believe it not."49 Let not your gaze hence-forward be downwards and fixed upon earth, for the Masterwill come down from heaven, not by himself, as he did before,but in company, escorted by thousands of angels. This time hewill not come all unseen, like dew upon a fleece but as visiblyas vivid lightning. For he said himself "As the lightning comethout of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also thecoming of the Son of man be,"50 and later, "And they shall seethe Son of man coming in the clouds with power and greatglory, and he shall send his angels with a great sound of atrumpet" and so forth.51

11. Now when he was about to be made man, at his firstcoming, and there was expectation of God being born of avirgin, the devil disparaged this dispensation beforehand by46 Sabellians. Eastern theologians like Cyril suspected, not without reason,

that the orthodoxy of the western Church covered a great deal of actualSabellianism.

47 Arians. Cyril must have been conscious of the revival of Arianism thatwas taking place among the eastern churchmen.

48 An allusion to II Tim. 4:3. 49 Matt. 24:23.so Matt. 24:27. 51 Matt. 24:30.


causing myths about the false gods of idolatry begetting andbeing begotten of women to arise, preparing the way with evilintent, supposing that if the false notion of divine birth was firston the ground, the true divine birth would be disbelieved.52

And in exactly the same way, now that the true Christ is aboutto come the second time, the adversary takes the expectationsof simple folk as a help, and especially those of the Jews, andintroduces a certain man, a magician,53 highly skilled in theguileful and evil art that deals in philtres and enchantments.This man will grasp in his own hands the power of the Romanempire, and falsely give himself out to be Christ. He will usethe appellation Christ in such a way as to take in the Jews thatare looking for their Messiah,54 while drawing to himself pagansby his magical illusions.

12. This aforesaid Antichrist will come when the destinedperiod of the Roman empire has run its course,55 and thesubsequent end of the world is drawing near. Ten claimants tothe empire will arise simultaneously, I suppose in differentparts, but all wearing the purple at the same time. Antichristwill form an eleventh after them, having seized the imperial

52 Cyril is here using what was a commonplace of Christian apologetic, not,however, in its usual context, but for the purpose of deducing the mannerin which Antichrist may be expected to display himself. He shares thecommon belief that Satan knows enough of the counsels of heaven toexercise his malice, but has not such perfect knowledge as to be able tothwart the purposes of God.

53 Magic, as a seeking of supernatural aid otherwise than from God, wasever abhorred by the Church, and so formed an essential trait in thecharacter of Antichrist. The general belief that much magic was puredeception and fraud contributed to the notion of Antichrist as theembodiment of falsehood. But magic had the associations of Satanicmalignance.

54 Tha t is, he will not call himself Christus, but Unctus, the anointed one;using the synonym for Christus which the Jews also adopted, so as, whenspeaking of the expected Messiah, to avoid the word used by the Chris-tians. Cyril's strong antipathy to Judaism comes out in this notion that,at the end of the world, Jewry will be the chosen ally of Antichrist. I tarose, no doubt, from the fact that Jerusalem was not claimed as theholy city of Christendom without bitter resistance from the Jews. ButHippolytus, On Antichrist, more than a century before Cyril, had predictedthat Antichrist would be patron of the Jews.

55 The early Church accepted generally the view, which Cyril here cham-pions, that the fourth kingdom of Dan. 7 is the R o m a n empire, whichwill last to the end of the world. While Paul has been thought to see inthe Roman empire something tha t would stand out against the consum-mation of wickedness by Antichrist, Cyril's view of the empire is that , indecadence, it would form the very means for the rise of Antichrist.


power by use of magic arts. He will humble three of those whocame to power before him, and cause the remaining seven to beCaesars under him.56 At prst he will feign mildness and willappear to be a learned and understanding man, with pretendedprudence and kindness. Then he will take in the Jews, bymaking them suppose him to be their expected Messiah, byfalse signs and wonders produced by magical trickery. Andafterwards his character will be written large in evil deeds otinhumanity and lawlessness of every kind, so as to outdo allwicked and godless men that were before him. He will displaya murderous, most absolute, pitiless and unstable tempertowards all men, but especially towards us Christians.57 Forthree years and six months only will he have maintained hiseffrontery when he will be brought to nought by the secondglorious coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God,our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ. He will destroyAntichrist "with the spirit of his mouth,"58 and commit himto the flames of hell.

13. These doctrines are not the fruit of ingenuity but arederived from the Sacred Scriptures read in the church, parti-cularly as gathered out of the prophecy of Daniel, in ourtoday's lection, and according to the interpretation given bythe archangel Gabriel, who spoke as follows, "the fourth beastshall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass allkingdoms."59 Ecclesiastical commentators have traditionallytaken this kingdom to be the Roman empire.60 For the firstremarkable empire was that of Assyria, the second was thecombined empire of the Medes and Persians. After these camea third empire, that of Macedon. And now we have the fourthkingdom which is the Roman empire. Further on Gabrielcontinues his interpreting and says, "And the ten horns out ofthis kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another kingshall rise up after them, and he shall surpass in wickedness allwho were before him" (not merely the ten kings, you note, butall kings that ever were) "and he shall subdue three kings"61

56 This appears to be Cyril 's unders tanding of D a n . 7 :24, tha t the skill ofAntichrist will enable h im to induce seven pretenders to the empire toserve u n d e r h im, so as only to be driven to dispose of three rivals by forceof a rms .

57 Cyril shows his liberal spirit in thinking of Antichrist not solely as thepersecutor of Christians, but as the foe of humanity.

58 II Thess. 2:8. 59 Dan. 7:23.60 e.g., Irenaeus and Hippolytus.w Dan. 7:24.


(clearly out of the ten that preceded him: and when he hadreduced three of the ten to powerlessness it is equally clear thathe will reign as eighth king)62 "and he will speak great wordsagainst the Most High."63 Antichrist is a blasphemer and flouterof all law. He will not succeed to the empire, but will usurp itby means of sorcery.

14. You ask who is Antichrist, and whence comes his activity.Let Paul explain to us. He says, "whose coming is after theworking of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders."64

What Paul implies is that Satan uses Antichrist as his tool,working through him as his proper agent. For Satan knowsthat there is not going to be any stay of the judgement comingupon him,65 and so he works no longer as he has been wont,through his subordinate spirits, but from now on wages warmore openly, himself,66 but always "by signs and lying wonders."For the father of lies figures forth works of false glamour, tomake the crowd suppose it is seeing a dead man raised to life,when he is not really alive, and lame men walking and blindmen seeing when no real cure has taken place.

15. Paul says further, "who opposeth and exalteth himselfabove all that is called god or that is worshipped,"67 that isabove every divinity, so that Antichrist will be the bitter foe ofthe idolatrous cults. He continues, "so that he sitteth in theTemple of God." What temple is that? Paul says it is the des-troyed temple of the Jews. For God forbid that it should be thatTemple of God in which we are! Why should I suggest sucha thing? Lest you should think me complacent about us62 Cyril's canon of Scripture did not include Revelation, and he never cites

it. But it was certainly known to him, if only through Irenaeus, who hasthe sentence, in Against Heresies, Bk. V, c. 26, Section 1, in reference toRev. 17:11, "so, clearly, since he who is to come will kill three of theten, while the rest will be subject to him, he will be the eighth amongthem." Irenaeus identifies the beast of Revelation with Daniel's eleventhking, and this is the probable explanation of Cyril's statement thatAntichrist is "eighth king."

63 Dan. 7:25.64 II Thess. 2:9.65 Irenaeus and Eusebius cite a passage of Justin Martyr saying that since

Christ's coming Satan is desperate, having learned the finality of his defeat.66 Cyril perhaps follows Hippolytus in thinking that Satan will become

incarnate as Antichrist. But it is unlikely, seeing that "children and thefruit of the womb are a gift that cometh of the Lord." Rather, we maysuppose, Antichrist is an abandoned man, who is possessed not by lesserdemons, but by the archfiend himself. To this man Satan gives hischaracteristic gifts of lying marvels.

67 II Thess. 2:4.


Christians.68 For if Antichrist will come to the Jews as Messiahand seek worship from the Jews, he will show great zeal forthe Temple so as to deceive them the more, hinting that he isthat man of the house of David destined to rebuild the templeerected by Solomon.69 Antichrist will come at such a time asthere shall not be left of the temple of the Jews "one stone uponanother," to quote the sentence pronounced by the Saviour.70

For it is not until all the stones are overthrown, whether bythe decay of age, or through being pulled down for buildingmaterial or in consequence of this or that other happening, andI do not mean merely the stones of the outer walls, but the floorof the inner temple where the Cherubim were, that Antichristwill come "with all signs and lying wonders" treating all theidols with disdain,71 at first adopting a show of being humane,

68 Cyril seems to imply that Antichrist will sit enthroned to be worshippedin a restored Temple, but that he would fain be so worshipped in theChurch of Christ if the Christians could be deluded as well as the Jews.Cyril thinks of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the counterpart ofthe Temple, so that it would be the mark for Antichrist's most daringattempt. In Lecture xm. 28, Cyril has claimed that Golgotha is thecentre of the earth, just as Jews had claimed for the Temple. So the Jewswere deceived, by many cubits distance!

® Little more than ten years after these words were spoken, Julian theApostate attempted to assist the Jews in restoring the Temple. Work wasbegun, but abandoned, according to Ammianus Marcellinus (Liber rerumgestarurriy xxiii. 1), because thunderbolts (globi flammarum) rained downupon the place whenever work was recommenced. The explanation ofJulian's attempt and of Cyril's prophecy is probably to be sought in thefact that the Jewish community began to agitate for a restoration of theTemple as soon as Constantine's building of churches had given theexcuse.

70 Mark 13:2. The Bordeaux pilgrim in 333 saw a good deal of buildingstanding on the Temple site, and tried to identify portions of it. Herecounts that Jews came and lamented over two pierced stones on theTemple site. And this may explain Cyril's supposition (below) that onemight know which was the "inner temple where the Cherubim were.1*The Christian inference that there w as a curse upon the stones of Herod'sTemple apparently resulted in the site not being despoiled for the buildingof churches. Chrysostom's Homily lxxv on St Matthew decl ares that theprophecy of Mark 13:2 was not yet fulfilled. Nor had it been, when, inthe seventh century, the Saracens undertook their restoration of theTemple as a mosque.

71 Cyril thus shows no expectation of paganism proving moribund. It is notclear why he assumed that the total destruction of the Temp le at Jeru-salem, prophesied by Christ, was to be followed immediately by the lastthings. But this is clearly what he thought. And it must have had thestrange result that the endurance of the Temple ruins would be, to hisflock, reassurance that the end was not yet.

l6o CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

but later displaying his ruthlessness, especially towards the holypeople of God. For it says, "I beheld, and the same horn madewar with the saints,"72 and in another Scripture it says, "Andthere shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since therewas a nation even to that same time."73 Antichrist is the terriblewild beast, the great dragon unconquerable by man and readyto swallow him up. But although I have more things to sayabout him drawn from Holy Scripture, I am content to havesaid so much lest I exceed the due proportion.

16. Because our Lord knew how mighty our Adversary wouldbe, he was tender to men of religion and said, "Then let themwhich be in Judaea flee to the mountains."74 But if anyoneknows in himself that he is tough enough to try a fall withSatan, let him stand his ground75 (for I am not unhopeful ofthe Church's nerve). And let him say, "Who shall separate usfrom the love of Christ?" and the rest of that passage.76 Butwhile those of good courage should stand their ground, let thefearful among us look for safety, "for there shall be greattribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world,no, nor ever shall be."77 But thank God for confining the heightof this affliction to a few days duration! For it says, "But forthe elect's sake those days shall be shortened."78 The reign ofAntichrist will only be three and a half years. I go by Daniel,and not apocryphal writings.79 For Daniel says, "And they shall72 Dan. 7:21. In his applications of the details of the Daniel prophecy to

Antichrist, Cyril follows Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, so muchthat he may be assumed to have known that work. 73 Dan. 12:1.

74 Matt. 24:16 applied to the reign of Antichrist at Jerusalem.75 The Church of Jerusalem is, in Cyril's eyes, not so much the first church

as the final Church. It is at Jerusalem that Antichrist will end his reign,and the supreme martyrs will answer their call. The conception is one thatmust have paved the way for Jerusalem to claim patriarchate, sinceJerusalem would be the heart of the final battle, with great Rome onthe periphery. 76 Rom. 8:35~end. 77 Matt. 24:21. 78 Matt. 24:22.

79 The most probable reference of these words is to the Book of Revelation.As we have seen, this book is not included in Cyril's Canon of Scripture,as given in Lecture iv, Section 36. Hippolytus and Irenaeus, whom Cyrilfollowed, used Revelation, and it must be deliberate that he does notfollow them in this. Revelation was early accepted into the westernCanon, but Syria and the Orient was very late in following suit. Eusebius(Ecclesiastical History, iii, 24, 25) professed doubt as to the status of Revela-tion, being much impressed by the criticisms of it by Dionysius of Alex-andria. But he probably was loth to be assured of its canonicity becauseit lent support to the chiliasts. Cyril's feelings in the matter would followclosely upon those of Eusebius. And Revelation tended to create difficul-ties for the system of eschatology that he had based on the Synoptic Gospels,Paul, and Daniel.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES l6l

be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividingof time."80 "A time" means the single year covering his riseto power. "Times" means the ensuing two years of his wickedcareer, which, when added to the single year, make up thethree years. "The dividing of time" means the last six months.Daniel makes the same statement in another passage, saying,"And he sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be fora time, times, and a half."811 think that some exegetes deducedthe same meaning from later verses, "the thousand two hundredand ninety days," and "Blessed is he that waiteth and comethto the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days."82 Thatis why we are to go into hiding and take to flight. For quitelikely "we shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till theSon of man be come."83

17. Who, then, is the "blessed" that then bears his witnessdevoutly for Christ ? For I tell you that those who are martyrsthen, take precedence of all martyrs. For previous martyrs havewrestled only with human antagonists. But the martyrs underAntichrist do battle with Satan in his own person.84 The perse-cuting emperors of the past only put men to death. They didnot pretend to raise the dead. They did not show illusory signsand wonders. But in the reign of Antichrist there will be theevil persuasion alike of terror and deceit, "insomuch that if itwere possible they shall deceive the very elect."85 At that time,may it enter into the heart of none to ask, "What did Christmore than this? For what power enables this man to do suchdeeds? Unless God willed it, he would not have allowed it."The Apostle warns you, prophesying, "And for this cause Godshall send them strong delusion."86 Now where it says "shallsend," it is equivalent to "will suffer to be." The saying is notmeant to excuse these people, but to settle their condemnation.And why? The Apostle replies, "they believed not the truth,"meaning the true Christ, "but had pleasure in unrighteous-ness,"87 meaning Antichrist. Now God suffers these things tohappen alike in persecutions that occur from time to time andin those last days, not because he is powerless to prevent them,80 Dan. 7:25. 81 Dan. 12:7. 82 Dan. 12:11, 12. 83 Matt. 10:23.84 Cyril's theory is that all through history Satan has warred against God

and man, at first disdainfully, through subordinate evil spirits, but, fromthe incarnation and founding of the Church, with growing desperation.At the last, in the vain hope of replying to the incarnation he will directlypossess the evil man Antichrist, and the last martyrs will therefore meetthe full and desperate malevolence of Satan.

S5 Matt, 24:24. 86 II Thess. 2:11. *7 II Thess. 2:12.

l62 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

but because it is his way to crown his own athletes for theirendurance, just like his prophets and apostles. He means thatafter a short while of labour they shall inherit the eternalkingdom of the heavens. So Daniel says, "And at that timethy people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be foundwritten in the book (he clearly means the Book of Life), andmany of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlastingcontempt; and they that be wise shall shine as the brightnessof the firmament: and they that turn many to righteousnessas the stars for ever and ever."88

18. So be warned, my friend. I have given you the signs ofAntichrist. Do not merely store them in your memory. Passthem on to everyone without stint. If you have a child afterthe flesh, teach them to him forthwith. And if you have becomea godparent forwarn your godchild, lest he should take thefalse Christ for the true. For "the mystery of iniquity dothalready work."89 These wars between nations frighten me. Theseparated Churches frighten me. Animosities among thebrethren frighten me. I have said enough. God grant that thesethings may not come in our time, but in any case we have beenwarned. So much, then, for Antichrist.

19-21. But let us await eagerly and expect the coming of ourLord from heaven upon the clouds.90 According to our day'slection, "the Son of man" shall come to the Father "with theclouds of heaven" followed by "a stream of fire" for thepurging of men.91 If any man's deeds are golden he will shinemore brightly still. If anyone's manner of life is like stubble,and has nothing solid about it, the fire will burn that person up.And the Father will be seated, having "his garment white assnow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool."92 This isspoken anthropomorphically. And its spiritual sense ? that he isthe King of such as are not defiled with sins. For God says,"Your sins shall be as white as snow, and shall be as wool."93

88 Dan. 12:1-3 (Septuagint). 89 n Thess. 2:7.90 T h e first sentence of Section 19 here given is immedia te ly followed by

the resumpt ion of the exegesis of the Lection (Dan. 7) in the midd le ofSection 2 1 , the intervening ma t t e r being omit ted .

91 D a n . 7 :13 followed by v. 1 o. T h e fiery s t ream issuing from before thethrone of the Ancient of Days , in v. i o , Cyril takes to be purga tor ia l , a n dso supposes t h a t it follows the descent of the Son of m a n to ea r th (deducedfrom v. 14) to pu rge those capable of salvation before the final j u d g e m e n t .Cyril follows Or igen in th inking divine pun i shmen t chiefly purga to r ia l .

92 Dan. 7:9. 93 Isa. 1:18, omit t ing the reference to scarlet a n d cr imson.


Wool is the emblem of forgiveness of sins, as also of innocence.94

Now the Lord, who ascended upon a cloud, will come fromheaven on clouds. For he said, "And they shall see the Son ofman coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and greatglory."**

22. But what is the sign of his coming? Is it one that theopposing power might dare to counterfeit? Listen. "And thenshall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven."96 Now thetrue and authentic sign of Christ is the cross. The sign thatprecedes the King is a cross of light,97 announcing him whoaforetime was crucified. So, when the Jews see it, who of oldpierced him and conspired against him, let them "mourn tribeby tribe"98 and say, "This is he who was buffeted. This is hein whose face they spat. This is he whom they bound withchains. This is he whom they set at naught upon the cross."99

"Where shall we flee from the face of thine anger?" they willcry. But they will not be able to flee anywhere, for the angel-hosts will encompass them round. So the sign of the cross willbe terror to our enemies, but joy to the friends who put theirfaith in him, preached him, or suffered for his name.

24. "The Son of man" it is written, "shall come in his glory,and all the angels with him."1 Note, my friend, before howmany you will come to be judged. Every race of men will be

94 White wool, in contrast with black goats' hair, is the symbol of innocence,after forgiveness as in Ps. 5117, where the reference to washing implieswool, and in Isa. 1:18; without qualification in Mark 9:3. The partplayed by scarlet wool in Heb. 9:19 explains the transfer of the symbolismof forgiveness from white wool, to wool as wool, irrespective of colour.

w Matt. 24:30. 96 Idem.97 This assertion that the second coming of Christ will be heralded by the

appearance of a cross of light in the heavens does not occur in earlierliterature, unless we so interpret "First a sign of spreading out in heaven'*in Didache, xvi. There must have been much speculation on "the sign ofthe Son of man" in Matt. 24:30, and Origen's exegesis of this textproposes a different explanation. As we have a cross of light in the skyrecorded in Cyril's letter to Constantius written apparently more thana year after this lecture, the fully reasoned anticipation is the moreremarkable. It is hardly credible that the Jerusalem parhelion of 351could be the inspiration of Cyril's argument here, but an earlier parhelionmight have suggested this understanding of "the sign of the Son of man."See the Notes to Section 4 of the Letter of Cyril to Constantius below.

98 Zech. 12:12 (Septuagint).99 Thus the sign shatters the delusion of Antichrist, and shows the Jews

that they rejected Messiah.1 Matt. 25:31. A passage from the middle of Section 22 to the beginning

of Section 24 has been omitted.


present then. Think therefore of the numbers of imperial citi-zens. Think what the barbarian nations amount to. Take thenumbers now living and those who have died in the lasthundred years. Think how many have been buried in the lastthousand years. Think of all the human race from Adam tilltoday. It is a vast multitude, and yet by comparison it isnothing much, for the angels are more numerous. They are the"ninety and nine" sheep,2 while the human race is the lone one.For we must suppose that the multitude of inhabitants iseverywhere in proportion to the space. Now the whole earthsurface is like a point when compared with the heaven aboveit.3 And the heaven that wraps the earth around is inhabited bya multitude proportioned to its extent. And the heavens ofheavens contain a multitude beyond computation. Scripturesays, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and tenthousand times ten thousand stood before him."4 That does notmean that those were all there were, but that the prophetcould find no expression to convey more than that. At that dayof judgement there will be present God the Father of all, withJesus Christ enthroned beside him, and the Holy Spiritpresent with them. The angel trumpet will summon us before2 Matt. 18:12. This interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep, with

the notion that all space is crowded with angels, was first brought togetherby Cyril, and then, almost simultaneously, by Hilary of Poictiers (Com-mentary on Matthew, c. xviii, Section 6; Tractate on Psalm cxviii,Section 7). As Hilary spent five years' exile in Asia Minor, there is someprobability that both writers were indebted to a lost Commentary, andthat it was one by Origen. At the point in Origen's Commentary onMatthew where he might interpret the parable of the lost sheep, he passesit over with a reference to his Commentary on Luke, of which the passagedoes not survive. As Jerome refers to and rejects the interpretation whichsees in the ninety and nine sheep the angels, it is the more likely that itwas associated with Origen. Jerome likewise pours scorn on the notion(held by Origen) that God set angels over the propagation of irrationalliving creatures. (Commentary on Habakkuk 1:14). It is likely enough,therefore, that Cyril owes this exegesis to Origen.

3 Cyril follows Origen in believing that angels are circumscribed beings,who must therefore always be somewhere and cannot be everywhere,and that they could be called bodiless in the sense of having no body thatwas theirs always and continuously. Cyril, accepting the idea of concentricheavenly spheres round about the earth, sees in the heaven above theearth, the first heaven. By the heaven of heavens he designates whateversuperior spheres there may be. And spatially these must be vaster still.But at this point Cyril halts his speculation, before involving himself insome of the self-contradiction that befell those who followed him andwere less restrained.

4 Dan. 7:10.


them, bringing our deeds with us. Is that not good reason forus to be concerned now? Do not you think, my friend, thatquite apart from any penalty, it is no small sentence to havesentence passed before such a company ? And surely we wouldrather die many deaths than have to be sentenced by friends!5

27. Should you ever hear someone say that the kingdom ofChrist is to end, abhor it as heresy. It is a fresh head of the hydrathat has recently reared itself round about Galatia. Someone6 hadthe effrontery to say that Christ is King no more, after the end ofthe world, and dared to declare that the Word that came forthfrom the Father will be reabsorbed into the Father and haveno more existence, blasphemies that must recoil to his ownhurt. For he has not heeded the words of the Lord, "The Sonabideth for ever."7 He has not heard Gabriel declaring, "Andhe shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of hiskingdom there shall be no end."8 Take full stock of this lastpassage. On the one hand you have human heretics teachingto the detriment of Christ, and on the other, there was thearchangel Gabriel teaching that the Saviour abides for ever.Whom do you prefer to believe? Is not it Gabriel? Hear thewitness of Daniel to what he saw, "I saw in the night visions,and one like a Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,and came to the Ancient of Days, and there was given himdominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations,and languages should serve him; and his dominion is an ever-lasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdomthat which shall not be destroyed."9 This is the teaching you

5 Section 24 is completed and then Sections 25 and 26 omitted for brevity.6 This is Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia. He was

an enthusiastic supporter, at Nicaea, of the doctrine that the Son isconsubstantial with the Father. Ten years later, provoked by the teachingof an Arian sophist, Asterius, that the Son is the sole direct and eternalcreature of the unbegotten Father, Marcellus was in trouble for writingthat the Word of God had not separate being until becoming Son byincarnation, and would again cease to have separate being when thework of redemption had been accomplished. At a synod at Constantinoplein 336, Eusebius of Caesarea, to the delight of the eastern bishops thereassembled, convicted Marcellus of producing a new version of the Sabel-lian heresy. The easterns suspected that many Sabellians were shelteringunder the Nicene formula. Hence one cause of Cyril's unwillingness touse that formula, although it expressed what he believed. Hence alsohis brisk despatch of the doctrine of Marcellus, whom he does not name,perhaps because many western pilgrims were convinced that Marcelluswas orthodox. As host to such pilgrims, it is not surprising if Cyril soughtpeace where possible. 7 John 8:35. 8 Luke 1133.

9 Dan. 7:13, 14. Section 28 has been omitted for brevity.


should prefer. Put your trust in it and dismiss the words ofheresy. For you have heard most explicitly about the kingdomof Christ that has no end.

29. Would you like to know what induces these people tobe so mad as to teach the contrary ? They have misread what theApostle wrote quite clearly, that Christ must reign "till he hathput all enemies under his feet."10 So they say that when hisenemies have been put under his feet, he will be no longer King,a bad and stupid thing to say. For if he is King before he hasfinally defeated his enemies, must he not be all the more Kingwhen he has completely mastered them?11

31. Let us examine them on the meaning of "till" or "until."For I shall try to join issue with them over this word, and over-turn their error. You see that they have made bold to say thatthe phrase "until he hath put his enemies under his feet" pointsto his coming to an end. So they dare set a limit to Christ'seternal kingdom, and, on the strength of that word ("until"),terminate a dominion that knows no end. Well, then, let usread similar phrases from the Apostle: "Nevertheless, deathreigned from Adam till Moses."12 So, I suppose, men died untilMoses, but afterwards none died; in fact when the Law hadbeen given there was no more death for men!13 That shows youthat the expression "until" does not imply the ending of a period.Rather you see Paul's meaning to be that in spite of Moses beinga righteous and admirable man, the death-sentence promul-gated upon Adam reached also to him, and to those who cameafter, even though he and they did not copy the sin of Adamin disobediently eating of the tree.

32. Take, also, another like expression. "For until this day. . . when Moses is read, the veil is upon their hearts."14 Does"until this day" mean "up to the time that Paul wrote thewords and no longer"? Does it not mean until this presentday and indeed to the very end? And if Paul should say, "Forwe are come as far as unto you also in preaching the gospel ofChrist, having hope, when your faith is increased, to preach thegospel in the regions beyond you,"15 you can see clearly thatthe phrase "as far as" sets no limit, but indicates what liesbeyond. With what meaning, therefore, ought you to recall the10 I Cor. 15:25. n So also Section 30 has been omitted.12 Rom. 5:14.l* A sarcastic reference to Romans 6:9, "When the commandment came

. . . I died."" II Cor. 3:14, 15. 15 II Cor. 10:14, 15, 16.


words "till he hath put all enemies" ? Just the same as in anothersaying of Paul, "But exhort each other daily, while it is calledto-day,"16 which clearly means for all time. For as we must nottalk of a beginning of the days of Christ, so never suffer anyoneto speak of an end of his kingdom. For Scripture says, "hi?kingdom is an everlasting kingdom."17

33. I have many other testimonies from Holy Scripture tcthe fact that the kingdom of Christ endures throughout allages. But I will content myself with what I have said, becausethe day wears on. And do you, my hearers, worship him aloneas King, and flee every misguided heresy. If God's grace permit,the remaining articles of the faith shall be explained to you indue season. And may the God of all creation keep you all inmind of the signs of the end and preserve you unsubdued toAntichrist. You have been given the signs of the coming ofthat deceiver. You have been given the demonstration thatthe authentic Christ is about to descend visibly from heaven.Flee the first, the false Christ, and look for the true. You havebeen taught the way to be among those on his right hand atthe judgement. Retain "that which is committed to thee"18

concerning Christ, and be adorned with good works. So youwill stand with a good courage before the Judge, and thereafterinherit the kingdom of heaven. Through him and with himbe glory to God, with the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.

L E C T U R E XVI

On the clause, "and in one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who spake by theprophets"

The Lection is from the first Epistle to the Corinthians.l

1. Verily I need spiritual grace if I am to discourse of theHoly Spirit: I do not mean, to enable me to speak as the subjectdeserves, for that is not possible, but simply to run throughwhat is said in Holy Scripture without imperilling my soul.For what is written in the Gospels, of Christ saying unequivo-cally, "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, itshall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in theworld to come,"2 truly makes one very much afraid. And thereis oftentimes reason to fear that a person may incur this con-demnation for saying what he ought not about the Holy Spirit,16 Heb. 3:13* l7 Dan. 7:27. l8 I Tim. 6:20.1 The Lection was I Cor. 12:1-7. 2 Matt. 12:32.


either through ignorance or mistaken religion. He who pro-claimed that such an one should not be forgiven is the Judgeof quick and dead, Jesus Christ. After that, what hope is therefor an offender?

2. Under those circumstances it must be for the grace ofJesus Christ himself to grant me to speak impeccably and youto hear with understanding. For understanding is needed byhearers as well as speakers, lest they form a wrong impressionin their minds from what they are rightly told. Therefore letus say about the Holy Spirit exactly what Scripture says andnothing else, and do not let us pry where Scripture does notanswer. The Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit himself,and what he said about himself is exactly what he pleased, orwe could comprehend. So, let what he spake be said, which isto say, let us not dare to utter anything that he did not.

3. There is one only Holy Ghost the Paraclete. And just asthere is one God the Father, and no second Father exists, andjust as there is one only-begotten Son and Word of that oneGod, having no brother, so there is but one Holy Spirit, andthere is no second spirit ranking beside him.3 So the Holy Spiritis supreme power, divine substance, and ineffable nature. Forhe is alive and rational, and sanctifies everything that comes fromGod through Christ.4 He enlightens the souls of righteous men.He was in the prophets, and under the new covenant he was inthe apostles. Such as dare to break in two the work of the HolySpirit are to be abhorred.5 There is one God the Father, Lordof the Old Testament and of the New. And there is one Lord3 When Cyril delivered this splendidly orthodox statement of the Christian

doctrine of God the Holy Spirit, the Church at large had still to fight itsway through a period of controversy to reach the same position. Cyrilshows, in the next section, that he was aware of teaching which perhapsincluded the Holy Spirit under the category of creatures. In fact, fromA.D. 350 Macedonius was bishop in Constantinople, teaching that theSon is of essence like the Father's essence, and still further subordinatingthe Holy Spirit. At any rate, such was the doctrinal system which cameto be known as Macedonianism. In 358-9, Athanasius was face to facewith a group whom he calls Tropici, who supposed the Spirit to be acreature. The Church began to win its way out of this controversy throughthe work of Basil On the Holy Spirit, written in 375, and the orthodoxdoctrine was established by the synod of Constantinople, in 381, atwhich Cyril was hailed as a hero of the faith.

4 The last clause exactly expresses the debt of Cyril to Origen, in thismatter.

5 By "breaking in two the work of the Holy Spirit" Cyril means denyingto the Old Testament the same degree and kind of inspiration as the New.Cyril here condemns all the Gnostics, as well as the Marcionites.


Jesus Christ, prophesied in the Old Testament and present inthe New. And there is one Holy Spirit, who proclaimed thethings of Christ by the prophets, and then when Christ came,came down himself to make him known.

4. Let no one therefore draw a line between the Old Testa-ment and the New. Let no one say that the Spirit in the OldTestament is not identical with the Spirit in the New. Forwhosoever does so offends none other than that Holy Spiritwho is honoured with one honour together with the Father andthe Son; none other than that Holy Spirit whom we receive inthe moment of holy baptism in the threefold Name, and by itsmeans. For the only-begotten Son of God commanded theapostles explicitly, "Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizingthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost."6 In the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, isour hope. We are not preaching three Gods, so let the Marcion-ites hold their peace;7 but aided by the Holy Spirit through theone Son, we preach one God. The objects of faith are not ondifferent levels, nor is our worship of different orders. We donot, like some, make different grades within the Holy Trinity,nor do we make it one by coalescence, as Sabellius does.8 Butwe have godly knowledge of one Father who sent his Son to beour Saviour; likewise one Son who promised to send the Para-clete from the Father's side; and likewise the Holy Spirit, whospake in the prophets and at Pentecost descended upon theapostles in the likeness of fiery tongues. That happened herein Jerusalem in the Upper Church of the Apostles,9 for we are

6 Matt. 28:19.7 The life of the Marcionite sect was still strong in the Orient, and Cyril

here seems to tell us that the Marcionites accused the orthodox of believingin three Gods. Perhaps they meant the Father, the Son, and the Demiurge,as there was no place in their system for a Third Person of the Spirit.But Cyril chooses to take their jibe as against the Spirit.

8 The Arians "made grades in the Trinity" by putting Son and Spirit onseparate levels of creaturehood under the uncreated Father. The Sabel-lians "coalesced" the Trinity by regarding the Persons of Christiantheology as mere appearances assumed by one only divine Person forthe sake of aiding our understanding. In the preceding sentence, Cyrilgives us a condensed argument against Arianism, in saying that faithand worship cannot know a less or more. An Arian Christ cannot bebelieved in or worshipped.

9 What Cyril calls the Upper Church of the Apostles was the ancientchurch of the City standing in the south-west corner of the walled area.Maximus removed the bishop's seat thence to the Martyry in A.D. 335.The old cathedral church was believed to be on the site of the house ofthe Last Supper, and the title "Upper Church" seems to point to its


privileged, here, in every matter. To this spot Christ came downfrom heaven, and to this spot likewise the Holy Ghost camedown from heaven. And it would certainly be most appropriatethat just as I talk to you of the things of Christ and Golgothahere on Golgotha, I should talk to you about the Holy Spirit inthe Upper Church. Nevertheless, he who descended in thatplace is sharer of the glory of him who was crucified here.And so I am discoursing here of him who descended there.For religion is not to be parcelled out.10

22. Great indeed is the Holy Spirit, and in his gifts, omni-potent and wonderful. Think how, whatever number there isof you sitting here now, there is present that number of souls.On each one, he is at work to good purpose, and, as present inthe midst, he sees how each is disposed. He sees alike thethoughts and consciences of each. He knows what we say andwhat we think and what we believe. What I have said mightseem enough for us, but yet it falls short of the whole. For,with your minds enlightened by the Holy Spirit, I beg you tonote how many Christians there are in the whole of the diocese, *x

being the successor-building of the Upper Room. Later pilgrims speakof a very big church on this site, and there are traces of this having beenthe case. But it is not very probable that this new building goes back tothe time of the lectures. We must therefore think of a very modest houseof prayer suited to the Christian congregation of pre-Constantinian Aeliaas that to which Cyril refers. In view of the destruction of the Temple,the Christians called their old church New Sion. And there, Eusebiustells us (Ecclesiastical History, vii. 19), the people preserved and veneratedthe throne of James. It was this throne, presumably, that was transferredto the Martyry. Epiphanius (On Weights and Measures, 14) says thatHadrian found the little church standing, and that the Christians ofAelia claimed continuity here, with the apostolic mother Church.

10 Cyril's wisdom is shown in adopting this principle. To have done other-wise would have encouraged a popular Christian tritheism. Sections5—21 inclusive have been omitted, for brevity, containing, as they do,a refutation of early heresies and a review of the scriptural bases fora doctrine of the Person and work of the Holy Spirit.

11 The word is paroikia, which later came to mean a parish, or single cureof souls. In the fourth century, its Christian use was for that part of theuniversal Church that was under the rule of one bishop. And as, in theeast, the charge of a bishop was still often confined to the Christiansresident in a single town, it still retained its literal meaning, "the peopleliving there." Even in the east, however, the bishop of a city ruled overan extent of country dotted with village congregations. This had in factbefallen Cyril. And all these Christians were within the Jerusalem paroikia.The word dioikesis, our "diocese," was still in civil use to mean one of thelarge administrative subdivisions of the empire made by Diocletian andplaced under an Imperial Vicarins. From the fourth to the eleventh cen-


and then how many in the whole province of Palestine.12 Nextstretch your thoughts beyond the province to take in the wholeRoman empire. Then, if you please, beyond that, into thewhole wide world, the people of the Persians,13 the nations ofIndia,14 the Goths and Sarmatians,x 5 Gauls and Spaniards,

tury, the use of the word parochia, the Latinization of paroikia, for thecharge of a bishop, gradually gave way, in the west, to the use of "diocese,"which was, fundamentally, and apart from Diocletian's use of it, ageneral word for a sphere of administration. With this went the transferof parochia to designate the smaller local unit of cure of souls, of whichthere were many under one bishop.

12 At this time the whole of Palestine still formed a single civil provincewith its capital at Caesarea. Its subsequent division into three provincesreduced the civil standing of Caesarea and facilitated the ecclesiasticalrise of Jerusalem to be the patriarchal Church of all the lands betweenthe patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria.

13 The Persian or Parthian empire ceased to be Parthian and became Per-sian in A.D. 227 when the House of Sassan from Persis, the province nextto the Persian Gulf, drove out the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids, fromthe less civilized lands south of the Caspian. This revolution rejuvenatedthe empire, and the Sassanid King Sapor II, who reigned from 310 to381 (his whole lifetime) struggled without ceasing to wrest control fromthe Romans of land on his western frontier. To the east, his rule extendedto the Indus and the Oxus, and even beyond the latter. To residents inPalestine, and especially for Jerusalemites, who saw many pilgrims fromthe east, the Persian empire was very real, being as another world ofpeople stretching away to the east, and comparable with the Romanempire. Cyril knows that the people of the Persian empire are not onerace, but several, though forming one nation.

*4 Contacts between the Mediterranean world and India go back to theconquests of Alexander the Great, who reached N. W. India in the fourthcentury B.C., and thereafter, through Bactria and Persia, informationabout India reached the west, together with some luxury trade, and raretravellers. Certainly from the second Christian century, there was a fairvolume of sea-borne trade between the Red Sea coast of Egypt and thesouth and west coasts of India, where a large number of trading stationsof merchants from the Roman empire have been discovered. How muchCyril would know about the situation in general is matter for conjecture.It is possible that an Indian embassy designed to encourage western trade,which, according to Eusebius (Life of Constantine, vi. 50) reached Con-stantine about A.D. 330 did much to popularize the subject of India.This embassy claimed to represent a number of sovereigns, and it maybe for this reason that Cyril thinks of the Indians as constituting nations(in the plural). Eusebius also told (Eeclesiastical History, v. 10) thatPantaenus, in the late second century, found Christians in India who hadbeen evangelized by Bartholomew. It is possible, therefore, that allCyril's information was derived from Eusebius.

15 The Sarmatians were a Scythian race, who pushed westward acrossEurope in the third century, A.D., impelled by the Goths who followedthem. Both races were represented in the fourth century along the


Moors, Libyans, Ethiopians,16 and then all those others forwhom we have no recognized names: for not even the appel-lation of many nations has ever reached us. And then think howthat in each of these nations there are bishops, presbyters,deacons, religious men and women and all the other lay people.Finally contemplate the great Guardian and Dispenser of theirseveral graces, who, throughout the world, is giving to this onechastity, and to that one lifelong virginity, making another agenerous giver, and detaching another from care for worldlygoods, while on yet another he bestows the gift of driving outevil spirits. And just as daylight, by one act of the sun's radia-tion, enlightens the whole earth, so too the Holy Spirit is givinglight, to all who have eyes to see. For if anyone is unreceptiveof such grace because of spiritual blindness, let him lay theblame on his own faithlessness, and not on the Spirit.

23. You see his worldwide power, but do not restrict therange of your thoughts to earth. Now ascend and contemplate theheavens above. Ascend in imagination, please, as far as thefirst heaven, and there behold the countless myriads of angelswho inhabit it. If you can bear it, ascend in imagination afurther stage to the next heaven. Lo the archangels! Lo thespirits of God! Lo the virtues! Lo the principalities! Lo thepowers! Lo the thrones! Lo the dominations! Of all these theParaclete is the divine ruler, teacher and sanctifier. To speakof men, Elijah has need of him, Elisha has need of him, Isaiahhas need of him; to speak of angels, then Michael and Gabrielhave need of him. Nothing that has received its being rankswith him, so that the angelic orders, even if all their hosts weregathered together in one, cannot pretend to equality with theHoly Ghost. The all-gracious might of the Paraclete over-shadows them all. While they are sent to minister, he searchesthe very depths of divine Being: as the Apostle tells us, "Forthe Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit ofman which is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth noman, but the Spirit of God."17

Danube. Constantine in A.D. 322 turned a campaign for the discipliningof the trans-Danubian Sarmatians into the preparation for his war withLicinius. The evangelization of the Goths was going on under Ulfilasat the time of Cyril's lectures.

16 Cyril, at the end of this list, seems to have forgotten that he was speakingabout nations outside the Roman empire. He here enumerates barbarianpeoples who were in fact within the imperial frontiers.

17 I Cor. 2:10, n .


24. He it is who through the prophets predicted the things ofChrist, he again who worked mightily in the apostles.18 To thisvery day it is he who in the sacrament seals the souls of thosewho are baptized. These 19 are all gifts of the Father to the Son,who imparts them to the Holy Ghost. That is not my saying,but Jesus himself says, "All things are delivered unto me of myFather";20 while, of the Holy Ghost he says, "When he, theSpirit of truth shall come . . . " and so on, ending, "he shallglorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it untoyou."21 Every grace is given by the Father, through the Son,who also acts together with the Holy Spirit.22 There are notsome graces that come from the Father, and different gracesfrom the Son, and others again from the Holy Spirit.23 Thereis but one salvation, one giving of power, one faith, and yetthere is one God the Father, our Lord, his only-begotten Son,and one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Let us be content with thisknowledge and not busy ourselves with questions about thedivine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that hadit been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scrip-ture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know thatthere is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.24

25. In the time of Moses, this Spirit descended upon theseventy elders.25 These seventy elders were picked out, "and the18 Perhaps in allusion to Acts 4:33.19 Literally "The Father gives to the Son, and the Son imparts to the Holy

Ghost." The context implies that what is given and imparted is elect souls.20 Mat t . 11:27. 2 1 J o h n 16:13, 14.22 The formula is, literally, "by the Father, through the Son, with the Holy

Spirit ." The preposition "wi th" connects the Spirit with both Father andSon. All divine action is the action of the Holy Trinity. But the formulaexpresses an orderly relation within the Trinity in respect to divine action.

23 T h e characteristic of polytheism was that different favours were soughtfrom different deities. Christian tritheism was no serious danger, withCyril's safeguard.

24 Cyril has argued the extreme danger involved in saying anything aboutthe Holy Spirit beyond repeating the ipsissima verba of Holy Scripture.A n d the Eusebians, with whom he had been associated, strongly dep-recated any theological formulation that went outside the vocabularyof Scripture. But I I Peter 114 declares the elect to be sharers of the divinenature , and H e b . 1:3 speaks of the hypostasis of the Father. W e mustsuppose tha t these two passages are insufficient, in Cyril's eyes, to con-stitute a scriptural doctrine of divine na ture or hypostasis.

25 At this point there has been omitted a digression which the transcribersrecord Cyril to have made upon seeing signs of impatience in his audience,telling them to look to the Holy Spirit for aid in listening, and for aid tothe lecturer, in what he shall say. The story of the seventy elders, heassures them, has a moral for themselves.


Lord came down in a cloud, and took of the spirit that was uponMoses, and gave it unto the seventy elders."26 The Spirit wasnot himself divided, but his grace was shared out in corres-pondence with the recipients and their capacity for receivingsuch grace. Now sixty-eight of them were with Moses27 andprophesied, but Eldad and Medad were not there. This was sothat it might be shown that the grace was not from Moses butwas the action of the Spirit. For, lo! Eldad and Medad, whohad been sent for, are seen to prophesy, although they had notarrived at the place.

26. Joshua, the son of Nun, who succeeded Moses was amazedand came to Moses and said, "Have you heard that Eldad andMedad are prophesying? They were summoned and did notpresent themselves. My Lord Moses, forbid them."28 But hereplied, "I cannot forbid them, for the grace is from heaven.Indeed I am so far from forbidding them as I myself dependon grace. However, I am not supposing you to say this fromenvy. Do not 'envy for my sake'29 because they are prophesyingwhile you do not yet prophesy. Wait for the due season. And,O that all the Lord's people were prophets, whenever the Lordshall put his Spirit upon them."30 Now he himself prophesiedwhen he said "whenever the Lord shall put his Spirit uponthem." Surely he means that as yet this had not happened, and

26 Num. 11125.27 Cyril assumes that the statement in v. 26 that Eldad and Medad "were

of them that were written" means that their names were in a list ofseventy whom Moses bade to go to the tabernacle. So he supposes theprophetic frenzy to have fallen upon the chosen men before the last twoto leave the camp had done so. For this he finds a reason, that the peoplemight not think the Spirit-gift lay in the power of Moses. Most exegesis,ancient and modern, is against this reading of the passage. It will beseen in the next section, where Cyril tries to reconstruct the scene, thathe has supplied the word "summoned," relating to Eldad and Medad,where no such word stands in the scriptural text. Most exegetes havesupposed that, while being of the roll of elders, Eldad and Medad hadnot been summoned to the tabernacle, and were additional to the seventywho were summoned. On this view, the prophesying of Eldad and Medadwas still more significant. This view was responsible for the compositionof an apocryphal Prophecy of Eldad and Medad, of which traces are foundin early Christian literature. It is possible that it was antagonism to thisapocryphon that decided Cyril to regard the prophesying of Eldad andMedad as special only in that they were not at the tabernacle with theothers when the frenzy came upon them.

28 The last sentence is Numbers 11:28, the rest of the passage in invertedcommas being a speech of Joshua composed by Cyril.

2 9 Num. 11:29. 3 0 The last sentence is cited from the same verse.


so "You, Joshua, have not yet received." What, had not Abra-ham, had not Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, received? Had not thefathers of old received? No, but it is clear that "whenever theLord shall put his Spirit upon them" refers to a general out-pouring. It means that grace is partial, now, but will then beunstinted. Moses was hinting at what was to come to pass inour times at the Day of Pentecost. For in our times the Spiritdescended. All the same, he descended before our times uponmany. For it is written, "And Joshua the son of Nun was fullof the Spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands uponhim."31 You note how everywhere, in Old Testament and Newalike, there is this one symbolic action. In Moses' time the Spiritwas given by the laying on of hands. Peter likewise gave theSpirit by the laying on of hands.32 Now this grace is shortlyto come upon you when you are baptized. I am not telling youjust how, for I am not taking anything out of turn.33

27. The Holy Spirit came upon all the righteous men andprophets, such as Enos,34 Enoch, Noah and so on, to Abraham,Isaac and Jacob. For, in the case of Joseph, even Pharaoh cameto understand that he had the Spirit of God in him,35 while, asfor Moses, you have often heard of the wonderful works whichhe did, that came from the Spirit. A most doughty man ofthe Spirit was Job, and likewise all the saints whose names Iwill not pass in review. It was the Holy Spirit who was sent tofill with wisdom the cunning men who worked with Bezalelupon the construction of the tabernacle.36

28. As we read in the book of Judges, Othniel judged in themight of this Spirit,37 who empowered Gideon,38 gave Jephthahvictory,39 enabled a woman, Deborah, to wage war, andcaused Samson,40 so long as he behaved righteously and didnot grieve him to do deeds beyond the might of man. Likewisein the books of Kings we read about Samuel and David, how3i Deut. 34:9. 32 Acts 8:14-18.33 Cyril implies tha t , in a later lecture, he will tell them how a laying on of

h a n d s will br ing to them at bapt ism the gift of the Spirit. T h e impliedpromise is unfulfilled. T h e existing third mystagogical lecture, on Chrism,makes no reference to the laying on of hands , and the only reference toMoses in it is to his anoint ing Aaron. This is the less surprising if themystagogical lectures are not those tha t Cyril went on to give.

34 Of Enos, son of Seth, Cyril read in Gen. 4:26, according to the Septuagint,that "he began to call upon the name of the Lord." This, coming afterthe sacrifices of Cain and Abel, called for interpretation. Cyril apparentlydecided that it meant "began to prophesy."

35 Gen. 41:38. 36 Ex. 31:1, 2; 36:1, 2. 37judg. 3:10.38 Judg. 6:34. 39 Judg. 11:29. 4ojudg. 14:6.


they prophesied in the Holy Spirit and were chiefs among theprophets. And while Samuel was called the Seer,41 David saysclearly, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me,"42 and in thePsalms he says, "And take not thy Holy Spirit from me,"43

and, in another place in the Psalms, "Let thy good Spirit leadme into the land of uprightness."44

Likewise we read in the books of Chronicles how "the Spiritof God came upon Azariah"45 in the days of King Asa, "thenupon Jahaziel"46 in those of King Jehoshaphat, and then onAzariah who was stoned.47 And Ezra says, "Thou gavest alsothy good Spirit to instruct them."48 And how it was with Elijahwho was translated and with Elisha, those Spirit-borne andwonder-working men, everyone knows without my saying,that they were full of the Holy Ghost.

29. If, further, one works through the books of the twelveminor prophets, many testimonies to the Holy Spirit are tobe found. Thus Micah speaks as God's mouthpiece and says,"Truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord."49 Joel cries"And it shall come to pass afterwards, saith God, that I willpour out my Spirit upon all flesh" and what follows.50 Haggaisaid "for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts . . . my Spiritremaineth among you."51 And in like manner Zechariah says"Unless ye receive my words and my statutes which I com-manded my servants the prophets."52

30. Other testimony is borne by Isaiah, chief of propheticvoices, saying "And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counseland might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness; and the fearof the Lord shall fill him"53 (making it plain that the Spiritis one and undivided although his activities are manifold) andin another place "Jacob my servant . . . I have put my spiritupon him,"54 in another "I will pour my spirit upon thyseed,"55 in another, "And now the Lord God, and his spirit

41 I Sam. 9:11. 42 II Sam. 23:2. 43 Ps. 51:11.44 Ps. 143:10. 45 II Chron. 15:1. 46 II Chron. 20:14.47 The reference is to Zechariah, and the passage is II Chron. 24:20, 21.

The name is given as Azariah in some texts of the Septuagint. In II Ghron.26:5 and 20, the names Zechariah and Azariah seem to be interchange-able. The confusion did not originate with Cyril.

48 Cyril calls what we call the book of Nehemiah a part of the book ofEsdras (Ezra). The reference here is to Neh. 9:20.

« Micah 3:8. so Jo e l 2:28. si Hag. 2:4, 5." Zech. 1:6 (Septuagint). 53 l s a . 11:2 (Septuagint).54 lsa. 42:1 (Septuagint). 55 I s a . 44:3.


hath sent me/'5 6 in another, "This is my covenant with them,saith the Lord; my spirit that is upon thee,"57 in another,"The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lordhath anointed me . . ."58 and in yet another (where he isaccusing the Jews), "But they rebelled and vexed his holy spirit"ending "where is he that put his holy spirit within him?"59

In Ezekiel, also, (if you can still bear to hear more) thepassage I cited "And the spirit of the Lord fell upon me, andsaid unto me, Speak: Thus saith the Lord."60 We must give agood signification to the words "fell upon me." They mean"affectionately," as when Jacob having recovered Joseph "fellupon his neck,"61 or like the affectionate father in the Gospelparable who saw his son returning from his absence abroad, and"had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck, and kissedhim."62 There is another place in Ezekiel, "And he brought mein a vision by the spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of thecaptivity."63 In the lecture on Baptism you heard otherEzekiel texts, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you . . .a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I putwithin you . . . I will put my spirit within you,"64 and later"The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out inthe spirit of the Lord."65

31. It was the Holy Spirit that filled the soul of Daniel withwisdom so as, youth as he was, he sat in judgement on elders.66

Susanna, though chaste, had been pronounced a wanton, andthere was no one to defend her. For who was going to take herout of the hands of the magistrates? She was summarilycondemned to death; already she was handed to the execution-ers. But rescue was at hand in the form of an advocate,67

to wit the Spirit that hallows all intelligence. "Come to me" hesaid to Daniel. So a youth convicted elders of thinking the sinfulthoughts of youth. For it is written, "God raised up the holyspirit upon a young stripling."68 And to round it off in onephrase, the chaste lady was saved by the decision of Daniel. Iadduce this as an example to show the point, for there is notime now for commentary.69

56 Isa. 48:16. 57 Isa. 59:21. 58 Isa. 61:1. 59 l s a . 63:10, 11.60 Ezek. n :5 cited in Section 14. 61 Gen. 46:29. 62 Luke 15:20.63 Ezek. 11:24. 64 Ezek. 36:25-27 (Lecture III. 16).65 Ezek. 37:1. 66 "Daniel" (Susanna) 13:22.67 "Paraclete." Daniel was her visible advocate, but her true "Paraclete"

was the Holy Ghost who inspired Daniel.68 "Daniel" (Susanna) 13:45- 69 A short final passage is omitted.

12—c. j .


LECTURE XVIII

On the resurrection of the flesh, the Catholic Church, and eternal life1

The Lection is from Ezekiel.2

1. The hope of resurrection is a root of every kind of goodwork, for the expectation of reward braces the soul to pro-ductive toil. And whereas every worker is ready to sustain histoil if he can look forward to being repaid for his labours,where toil has no recompense the soul is soon discouraged and

1 Lecture xvn, which contines the theme of belief in the Holy Spirit fromLecture xvi, has been omitted. For the modern reader, it does not addanything very material from its review of New Testament passages.Cyril likens the relation of the Pentecostal gift to the man who receivesit to the fire of incandescence in red-hot metal, and describes this fire asdiscriminating, in that it consumes sins while it causes the soul to glow.

In Section 20, Cyril acknowledges that his Lectures xvi and xvn arevery long, and that he has come so close to Easter that there is no pos-sibility of making a third opportunity for treating of the Holy Spirit.In Section 30 he hints that he and his auditory are tired out, and in 34,again, that time is running out. The first sign of doubt on his part whetherhe will be able to cover the remaining heads of the creed before Eastermay perhaps be read into the final section of Lecture xv, where the promiseto complete the course is qualified by the phrase "if the grace of Godpermit." But Cyril had made an original study of the Scripture doctrineof the Holy Spirit, and had much more matter than the time wouldallow. So, when he came to treat of the three clauses following thatconcerning the Holy Spirit, he changed the order, so as to get adequate;time for dealing with the resurrection of the flesh. What we have in the.transcript as the close of Lecture xvni, on the Church and eternal life*is so compressed that we can safely conclude that Cyril had planned to*give a nineteenth lecture. It is probable that in later years he succeeded,;for the Armenian calendar to which reference has been made suppliesa nineteenth Lection, I Tim. 3:14-16, of which the middle verse,ideal as text for a lecture on the Catholic Church, is quoted in Section 25.In this case, the reversal of order, by which the resurrection of the fleshwas taken before the Catholic Church, and eternal life treated as apendent on the doctrine of the Church, was perpetuated in later lecturing*It thus appears that Cyril planned to give in all twenty lectures in fortydays, but that, for whatever reasons, in 350. progress was too slow in theearlier part of the course. It is at least possible that difficulties arisingfrom the instruction in Aramaic were a chief cause, and it is hard to seehow that instruction was covered at all in the last days of Holy Week.But at least there is some probability that, in this year of transcript, Cyrilwas intending to give alternate days to the instruction in Greek andAramaic.

2 The Armenian Calendar gives the whole passage Ezek. 37:1-14 as Lection*


the body flags with it. A soldier who expects his share of thespoils is ready for war. But no one is prepared to die serving aking so undiscerning that he does not provide rewards forlabours. In the same way, any soul that believes in resurrectiontakes care for itself as is meet, but any soul that disbelieves theresurrection abandons itself to destruction. A man who believesthat the body survives to rise again is careful of this his garmentand does not soil it by fornicating. But a man who does notbelieve in the resurrection gives himself up to fornication,abusing his own body as if it were nothing to him.

A mighty message and teaching of the holy Catholic Churchis belief about the resurrection of the dead; mighty and mostindispensable. While many gainsay it, the truth claims cre-dence for it. Greeks gainsay it, Samaritans disbelieve, whileheretics tear away the half.3 Truth never appears but in oneshape, while contradiction assumes a hundred.

2. Now this is what the Greeks join the Samaritans insaying against us;"your dead man falls down, decays, and iswholly dissolved into worms, and then the worms die. There isthe kind of decay and ruin that is the body's lot! How, afterthat, does it rise again ? Those that are drowned at sea the fishwill have devoured, only to be devoured in their turn. Thosethat perish fighting with wild beasts, bears or lions consume,crunching up their very bones. Vultures and crows eat theflesh from corpses lying on the ground and then fly off to everypoint of the compass. Can such a body be reassembled ? For itis on the cards that, of the birds that devoured it, one dies inIndia, another in Persia, and another in the land of the Goths.Other men are burnt to cinders in a fire, and then rain or winddisperses the very ashes. Can their bodies be reassembled?"

3. And this is my reply: "To small and feeble man, like you,it is a long way from India to the land of the Goths, from Spainto Persia. But it is no way to God, who holds the whole earth"in the hollow of his hand."4 Therefore, do not attribute toGod an inability that may match your own feebleness, butrather heed his might. Does the sun, then, warm the wholeworld by one instantaneous pouring forth of rays ? Yet the sun

3 As Cyril goes on to show, in Sections 11—13, the Samaritans received thePentateuch but not the prophets, so that the Ezekiel passage carried noweight with them. They acknowledged a survival of holy souls but asdisembodied only. Heretics believed in survival after death, but "toreaway" the resurrection of the flesh from such survival.

4 Isa. 4J 12.


is but a small part of God's works. Does God's creature, air,enwrap everything in the world? Then the divine Maker ofsun and air is surely far above the world."

Imagine, please, that you have a mixture of flower-seeds (itis only fair that if you are feeble where faith is concerned, Ishould give you feeble examples) and that you have all thesemixed seeds in the palm of your hand. Tell me, is it hard oreasy for you, a man, to sort your handful, collecting each of thekinds together again by itself? So you can sort out what liesin the hollow of your hand. And will you tell me that Godcannot see and put back things that lie within the hollow of hishands ? 5 Mark my words, and see if it be not impiety to denythem.

4. Please consider now the mere notion of justice and applyit to your own case. You have your different servants, some ofthem good and some of them bad. Well then, you honour thegood ones and beat the bad ones. And if you are a magistrateyou praise good men and punish criminals. If, then, justice ismaintained by you, a mortal man, will not justice be metedout by God, the perpetual King of the universe? It wereimpiety to deny it. But now mark what I say. Many a murdererhas died unpunished in his bed. Where was God's justice there?And it often happens that a man with fifty murders on his headloses it but once. Where, then, will he pay the penalty forforty-nine of them? You must charge God with lack of justice,if there be not judgement and recompense after this world. Donot be surprised, however, if judgement be delayed. It is onlyafter the contest is over that any competitor in the games iscrowned, or disgraced, as the case may be; while the presidingumpire never awards anyone a crown before the contest ends.On the contrary, he waits till he has seen how every competitorfinishes, and after that he knows how to award the prizes andthe wearing of the crown. In like manner God, so long as ourbattle in this world is still going on, accords the righteous onlya measure of his aid. But hereafter he distributes to everyonetheir recompense in full.

16. And there are many Scriptures that bear witness to theresurrection of the dead. For there are more things said on that

5 That is, God can cause the particles of matter that constituted a dis-persed body to come together again. This is only an ad hominem argument,to counter an objection, and is not meant to be the basis of a constructiveChristian doctrine. The second-century Christian apologists had, in fact,advanced most of Cyril's arguments.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES l8l

subject besides.6 I mention the resurrection of Lazarus afterfour days7 without, at this point, stopping to do more than callit to mind. Because of lack of time, I must pass by the raisingof the widow's son.8 Next let me just recall to you the daughter ofthe ruler of the synagogue,9 and mention the rocks being rent,and how "many bodies of the saints which slept arose"10 whentheir graves were opened. But principally let it be rememberedhow that "Christ has been raised from the dead."11

I passed over Elijah, and the widow's son whom he revived,12

and Elisha who raised a dead man to life on two occasions, onein his lifetime13 and the other after he was dead.14 For whenElisha was alive it was through the energy of his own soul thathe caused a resurrection.15 But the corpse that was thrown intoElisha's tomb and was restored to life again when it touchedthe dead body of the prophet was revived so that not the soulsonly of just men should receive honour, but that credit shouldbe given to the bodies of such persons for possessing inwardvirtue. The prophet's dead body accomplished a soul's workand what lay defunct gave a dead man life, only to remainitself among the dead after thus imparting life. And why ? Sothat, if Elisha should revive,16 the fact would not be attributedto the mere vitality of his soul;17 but to show that a certain6 Sections 5-15 inclusive, dealing with the arguments of unbelievers, have

been omitted for brevity. But in dealing with the Samaritans, Cyril hasadduced from the Pentateuch proofs of the resurrection of the flesh,and gone on to find further proofs in some prophetic passages. Now, inSection 16, he is about to deal with New Testament doctrine on thesame subject.

7 John 11. 8 Luke 7:11-15. 9 Mark 5:22-end.10 Matt. 27:51-53. ll I Cor. 15:20. 12 I Kings 17:17-24.13 II Kings 4:34. 14 II Kings 13:21, 22.15 Cyril has inferred that the vitality of the prophet's soul played some part

in resuscitating the Shunamite's son. If Elisha had risen from death, mightit be the same quality of his soul reasserting itself in his dead body?No, Cyril argues, if Elisha rose again it would be purely because Godraised him up. And this is shown by the fact that he did not resuscitatehis own corpse, when his corpse resuscitated another. The conclusionmight seem academic if the whole argument were not transferable toJesus. That Cyril should drop the argument at that point is evidencehow much his prepared matter exceeded the time that he now found athis disposal.

16 For the sake of argument, before the general resurrection.17 Cyril here provided a classic argument in favour of the veneration of

relics. The interesting point is the relation of his teaching to the develop-ment of the practice which he thus signally assisted. It may have beenin the year of the lectures that Gallus Caesar caused the body of Babylas,martyred bishop of Antioch, to be translated to the adjoining suburb of


virtue resides in the body of saints when the soul has departed,by reason of the righteous soul having inhabited it for so manyyears, to which it served as instrument. Let us not be so childishas to disbelieve, as if this thing had not happened. For if"handkerchiefs and aprons," things external to the saint'sbody, so touched the sick that they were raised up,18 how muchmore might the prophet's actual body revive the dead?

17. There would be a great deal to say about the incidentsI have mentioned, if I explained the wonder of the things thathappened, one by one. But because of the strain that you are tomeet19 from the prolongation of Good Friday's fast20 and thesubsequent all-night vigil,21 let them for the time being be taken

Daphne, to counteract the baleful influence of the shrine of Apollo there(Sozomen, v. 19). Some five years later, Constantius brought the reputedbodies of Andrew and Luke from Achaia, and of Timothy from Ephesus,to enrich the restored Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, wherethe body of Constantine lay (Philostorgius, iii. 2). This (apart from relicsof the Holy Cross taken to Constantinople by Helena) seems to beginthe long process of making the new Rome equal the old in the prestigeand degree of protection held to go with the possession and venerationof relics. Palestine does not seem to have had at all a lead in this develop-ment, and that Cyril should thus have interested himself in it may per-haps be regarded as due to the pilgrim impact on Jerusalem Christianity.

18 Acts 19:12.19 In this passage, the translator is offered three alternatives. He can take

kamaton as "weariness" or as the toil or strain that causes it; progignomaias "I precede" or as "I come forward"; the aorist participle progenomenonas referred to past fact or present fact. Former translators have taken thethree first alternatives, and so made Cyril say that his hearers are weariedbecause they have already endured a continuous fast and all-night vigil.These things extended from Friday evening to Easter morning, andtherefore cannot have happened when Cyril delivered this lecture. If wetake the second set of alternatives, the photizomenoi are just about to meetthis strain; and the time of the lecture is the Friday morning beforeEaster, not yet observed as "Good Friday."

20 For Cyril in 350 the Friday before Easter was the last of his forty lecturingdays. The photizomenoi would fast till evening and then break their fastin the way normal for fast days. That meal, however, would be theirlast until they began the feast at Easter. Cyril recognizes that they mustnot be over-tired before the strain of the forty-hours abstinence from food.

21 Dr J. Jeremias, s.v. Pascha, in KittePs Worterbuch zum JV-T., says thatthe primitive Church kept Passover with the Jews, only with Christ asPaschal Lamb, and Christian salvation as the deliverance from Egypt.But anti-Jewish polemic in the second century led to the attempt to be"out of step" with the Jews where possible. So now the Christians fastedwhile the Jews kept Passover, and kept their Easter Eucharist with thedawning of 15 Nisan. They gathered to hear the Scripture, and suchpreaching as we now know in the Paschal homily of Melito, and, whilethe Jews feasted, were "like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he


as said in passing, a thin sowing of the seed, which seed whenyou, being soil of the richest have received, you will bear anincreased yield. Now let it be recalled that the apostles alsoraised the dead. Peter raised up Tabitha at Joppa,22 Paulraised up Eutychus at Troas,23 and all the other apostles workedwonders, each in his own way, though they are not all recordedin Scripture.

You remember all that Paul says in his first epistle to theCorinthians in reply to folk who say "How are the dead raisedup? and with what body do they come?" namely that "if thedead rise not, then is not Christ raised."24 You remember thathe apostrophizes unbelievers as "fools," and you recall hiswhole teaching in that passage concerning the resurrection ofthe dead. You remember how he wrote to the Thessalonians"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerningthem which are asleep, that you sorrow not, even as otherswhich have no hope" and that whole passage, but particularlythe words "and the dead in Christ shall rise first."25

18. Now take special note of this, how Paul says, as though hewere pointing us where to look, "For this corruptible must puton incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."26

For this very body will be raised up, but it will not continue tobe weak, as it is now. Yet while the identical body is raised up,it will be transformed by the putting on of incorruption, as ironexposed to fire is made incandescent, or, rather, in a mannerknown to the Lord who raises up the dead.27

So, this body will be raised up. It will not continue just as itwill return." At the hour of his resurrection they broke the Eucharisticbread. Presently a new way of "breaking step" was found, by ignoring14 Nisan and carrying the forty-hour fast over to the end of the week inwhich it fell, so as to have the Easter Eucharist on the first day of theweek; in short, making Easter always a Sunday. For a long while, manyChristians refused to follow this development, and remained "Quarto-decimans," people who tied their observance to the 14th Nisan.

The starting-point for the Easter-eve illumination was the lamplitroom of Passover. When fast took the place of supper the illuminationwas made more brilliant, on the rule "when thou fastest, anoint thinehead." Thus in the fragment of a paschal sermon commonly printed aschs. 11 and 12 of the Epistle to Diognetus, we read that, the Pasch beingnow come, "the wax candles are brought and handsomely bestowed."This is probably earlier than the days of Narcissus. (See Introduction,Note 87.)

22 Acts 9:36-42. 23 Acts 20:7-12. 24 I Cor. 15:35, 13.25 I Thess. 4:13-16. 26 I Cor. 15:53.27 Note how Cyril leaves the genesis of the spiritual body as unrevealed.

The redhot iron simile is not pressed.


is now, but will be everlasting. No longer will it need suchfood to sustain its life as it needs now. It will not need stairs toascend by, for it will be spiritual, and that is somethingwonderful beyond anything that I am equal to describing. It issaid "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun,"28 as themoon "and as the brightness of the firmament."29 And God,who foreknew that men would not believe, has given tinylittle worms the power, in hot weather, to give off gleams oflight from their bodies, just so that what is to come might gaincredence on account of present phenomena. For he who canprovide a part can also provide the whole. And the God whomakes a worm30 radiate light is so much the more able to makeluminous a righteous man.

19. In the resurrection, therefore, we shall all have bodiesthat are everlasting, but not all in the same manner. If anyman is righteous, he will receive a celestial body, to be ablefittingly to converse with angels. If any man be a sinner, he willreceive an everlasting body in which to undergo the penaltyof sins, a body that will be eternally burned in the fire and yetnever be consumed.31 And this is a just disposition of God inrespect of both orders, for nothing that we do is done withoutthe body. We use our mouth to blaspheme, and we use ourmouth to pray. It is by means of the body that we commitfornication, and by means of the body that we are chaste. Withthe hand we snatch and with the hand we give alms. And it isthe same with every member. Therefore, since it is the bodythat has served to every work, the body will have its share inwhat comes to pass in the hereafter.32

20. So brethren, let us take good care of our bodies and notmisuse them as if they were no part of ourselves. Do not letus say what the heretics say, that the body is a garment,33 and28 Matt. 13:43. 29 Dan. 12:3.30 Ancient writers pillaged the Natural History of Aristotle for didactic marvels

in nature.31 This section epitomizes a Christian apologetic tradition going back to the

third century or earlier.32 Adopting the reading ginomeribn in preference to the more common

reading genomeribn. Gifford takes the other alternative, which makes thebody share, in the hereafter, the reward of past deeds.

33 The allegorical interpretation of Gen. 3:21 by Origen, saw, in the clothingof Adam and Eve in Eden after their fall, the putting into bodies of soulsthat had suffered a premundane fall, so that, in bodies, they might bepurged through the world-process. In 350, however, Origen was not yetbranded as a heretic. The heretics whom Cyril usually has in view bothrejected the Old Testament and regarded the body as much worse than


not part of us, but let us take care of it as being our own. Forwe shall have to give account to the Lord for everything thatwe have done with the body as instrument. Do not say, No onesees me. Do not imagine that you do anything unwitnessed.Often, it is true, there is no human witness. But our unerringMaker remains "a faithful witness in heaven"34 and beholdswhat is done. Moreover the stains made by sinning remain inthe body. For just as a scar remains, notwithstanding thehealing up, however complete, of a wound that has gone itscourse in the body, so likewise sin wounds both soul and body,and the marks of the scars remain every time, and are effacedonly in those who receive baptism. The former wounds, then,of soul and body, God cures by baptism, but let us one and allhereafter guard ourselves from future sins, to keep clean thisgarment, the body, and not lose heaven's salvation throughcommission of some few acts of fornication, self-indulgence orany other sin. Let us, on the contrary, be heirs of God's eternalkingdom. And may God grant you all, by the help of his grace,to be worthy of it.

21. So much by way of development of the clause on theresurrection of the dead. As for the profession of faith, as Irepeat it to you again, I want you to use every endeavour tosay it over with me and to memorize it.

[At this point it would appear that Cyril stopped lecturingand received the repetition by heart of the baptismal creedfrom the photizomenoi, one by one; and, this completed, whatwas in effect a second lecture was begun.]

The faith we profess comes in due course to the words "andin one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and inone holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh,and in eternal life." I dealt with baptism in relation to re-pentance in my opening lectures.35 And what I was sayingjust now on the resurrection of the dead covers the resurrectionof the flesh. The rest of my lecture is to discourse for a while on"and in one holy Catholic Church." It is a subject about whichthere is a great deal to say, but I shall speak of it quite briefly.

a garment, as indeed a tomb or prison of the soul. Cyril's emphasis ison the negation, "not part of us." The orthodox continued to accept thesimile of the body as a garment, which Origen's exegesis had madepopular, after his doctrine of the prenatal fall of souls had been con-demned.

34 ps. 89:37.35 In Lectures 11 and in.


23. The Church, then, is called Catholic36 because it isspread through the whole world, from one end of the earthto the other, and because it never stops teaching in all itsfulness every doctrine that men ought to be brought to know:and that regarding things visible and invisible, in heaven andon earth. It is called Catholic also because it brings intoreligious obedience every sort of men, rulers and ruled, learnedand simple, and because it is a universal treatment and curefor every kind of sin whether perpetrated by soul or body, andpossesses within it every form of virtue that is named, whetherit expresses itself in deeds or words or in spiritual graces ofevery description.

24. The Church is well named Ecclesia because it callseveryone out37 and assembles them together, according as, inthe book Leviticus, the Lord says, "And assemble thou(ecclesiason) all the congregation to the doors of the tabernacleof witness."38 We should note that this is the first time that thisword for "assemble" (ecclesiason) occurs in Scripture, and doesso at the point where the Lord places Aaron in the office ofhigh priest. In Deuteronomy, also, God says to Moses, "Assem-ble to me the people, and I will make them hear my words,that they shall learn to fear me."39 The name Church is recalledagain in the passage about the tables of the Law, "And on themwas written according to all the words which the Lord spakewith you in the mount out of the midst of the fire on the dayof the assembly (ecclesia)"40; which is the same thing as saying,in plainer words, "on the day when God called you out andgathered you together." And the Psalmist says, "I will give36 catholicos means "general," in distinction from "particular"; "universal"

in contrast with "limited." Cyril proceeds to find all the ways in whichthe Church is thus "Catholic." There is no saving doctrine that it fails toteach, no class of person that it does not contain, no evil for which it hasno remedy, no virtue that it does not inculcate.

37 Ecclesia is derived from the verb ekkalein, to call out, and was used bythe Greeks to denote the public gathering of citizens at the summons ofthe magistrates, when the magistrates wanted to find, or influence, themind of the people, on some issue. The idea of the word is that the peopleare called out of their houses to go to the public assembly. As Cyril goeson to say, the Israelites in their camp in the wilderness were summonedfrom their tents to the space in front of the tabernacle, in exactly thesame way, only that now the assembly has, from the first, sacred as-sociations. Hence the name Ecclesia passes, via Israel, to the ChristianChurch, which is an assembly of those whom God has called out fromamong men to have faith in Christ.

38 Lev. 8:3. 39 Deut. 4:10.40 Deut. 9:10.


thee thanks in the great assembly: I will praise thee amongmuch people."41

25. So, then, in the old dispensation, the Psalmist sang,"Bless ye God in the churches, even the Lord, from the fountainof Israel."42 But since then the Jews have fallen out of favourbecause of their conspiring against the Lord, and the Saviourhas built up a second holy Church, our Christian Church,from out of the Gentiles, and spoke of it to Peter, saying, "Andupon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hellshall not prevail against it,"43 David prophesied clearly con-cerning the two Churches, of the first, that it is cast off, "I havehated the church of the evil doers"44; and in the same psalm ofthe second church that is abuilding, "Lord, I have loved thebeauty of thine house"45; and straightway after, "In thechurches, will I bless thee, O Lord."46 For since the singlechurch that was in Judaea was cast off, henceforth the churchesof Christ abound in all the world. These are they of whichit is said in the Psalms, "Sing unto the Lord a new song, andhis praise in the church of the saints."47 In agreement withthese passages is that where the prophet said to the Jews, "Ihave no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts," and immedi-ately afterwards, "For from the rising of the sun even unto thegoing down of the same, my name shall be great among theGentiles."48 Paul writes to Timothy about this holy CatholicChurch and says "That thou mayest know how thou oughtestto behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church ofthe living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."49

26. But since the word "assembly" (ecclesia) has differentapplications, as when it is used in Scripture of the crowd thatfilled the theatre at Ephesus, saying, "And when he had thusspoken, he dismissed the assembly,"50 or when one applies it,quite properly and correctly, to heretical gatherings, since thereis a "church of the evil doers,"51 I mean the conventicles ofthe Marcionites, Manichees and others; because of this varietyof use, there has been given to you the article of faith "and inone holy Catholic Church," so that you should flee theirwretched gatherings, and ever keep within the holy CatholicChurch in which you are regenerate. Should you ever bestaying in some strange town, do not just ask, Where is the

4i Ps. 35:18. 42 p s . 68:26 (Septuagint). « Matt. 16:18.44 Ps. 26:5. 45 p s . 26:8 (Septuagint). 46 p s . 26:12.47 Ps. 149:1. 48 Mai. 1: io, n . 491x150 Acts 19:41. 51 Ps. 26:5 (Septuagint).

l 8 8 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

church (kyriakon^1 "kirk")? seeing that all those sects of theungodly would have their dens called churches. And do not becontent to ask, Where is the assembly (ecclesia) ? but say "Whereis the Catholic congregation?" For that is the unequivocalname of this holy Church and mother of us all. She is the brideof our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, as itis written, "As Christ also loved the church, and gave himselffor it . . ." (Read the whole passage.)53 She also presents theform and image of "Jerusalem which is above" which "is freeand the mother of us all," that once was barren, but now hathmany children.54

27. For after the first church was cast off, as Paul says, inthe second and Catholic Church, "God hath set first apostles,secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, thengifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues"55;yes, and every sort of virtue, such as wisdom and understanding,moderation and uprightness, generosity and kindness, andpatience that will not break down under persecution. "By thearmour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, byhonour and dishonour,"56 this Church in days of old, whenpersecutions and afflictions abounded, wove chaplets for theholy martyrs of the many tints and flowers of patience. Andnow, when God has favoured us with times of peace, thisChurch receives from emperors and men of high estate, as fromevery condition and race of men, the honour that is her due.And while the sovereigns of the nations in this or that part ofthe earth have borders set to their dominion, the holy CatholicChurch alone bears sway in all the world, and knows nobounds: as it is written "for God hath made her borderpeace."57 I should need to lecture for many more hours if Iwere to say everything about the Church that I would like tosay.

28. Now if, in this holy Catholic Church, we receive herteaching and conduct ourselves aright, we shall possess thekingdom of heaven and inherit eternal life. That is somethingfor which we endure all labours, so that we may enjoy it at theLord's hands. For what we aim at is nothing trivial. We arestriving after eternal life. In the profession of the faith, therefore,after "and in the resurrection of the flesh (or dead)" on which52 T h e church bui lding was no t called ekklesia b u t kyriakon, " t h e Lord ' s

house."53 Eph. 5:25. 54 Gal. 4:26. 55 I Cor. 12:28. 56 II Cor. 6:7, 8.57 Ps. 147:14 (A.V. He maketh peace in thy borders).


I have spoken, we learn belief "and in eternal life," for whichas Christians we are striving.

29. Now the life that is really and truly life is God theFather, the fount of life,58 who pours out his heavenly giftsupon all his creatures through the Son and in the Holy Spirit,and the blessings of eternal life are faithfully promised even tous men, through his love for us. There must be no incredulityabout the possibility of that. For we ought to believe, becauseour mind should be set on his power, not on our feebleness. Foranything is possible with God, and that our eternal life is bothpossible and to be looked forward to by us, is shown whenDaniel says, "the understanding . . . from among the manyrighteous shall shine as the stars for ever and ever."59 And Paulsays, "And so shall we be ever with the Lord."60 For "beingever with the Lord" means the same thing as eternal life. Butclearest of all, our Saviour himself says, in the Gospels, "Andthese shall go away into everlasting punishment, but therighteous into life eternal."61

30. Moreover there are many demonstrations of the manner62

of eternal life. And if we are eager to obtain this eternal life,the Holy Scriptures suggest to us the ways of doing so. But inview of the length of this lecture, I shall, for now, set before youa few of the testimonies, and leave the diligent among you tosearch out the rest. In some passages it appears that faith isthe means to eternal life, for it is written "He that believeth onthe Son hath everlasting life"63 and the rest of that passage.Again Christ says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he thatheareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hatheverlasting life . . ."64 In other passages it is the evangelicpreaching. For Christ says, "he that reapeth receiveth wages,and gathereth fruit unto life eternal."65 In other passages it isby being a martyr or confessor in Christ, for he says, "And hethat hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal."66

58 Within the next thirty years, as the formulation of the doctrine of theTrinity reached stability, God the Father came to be called "fount ofGodhead," and the Holy Spirit came to be confessed as "Life-giver."Cyril, however, who calls the Father "fount of life," recognizes fully that"eternal life" is no natural attribute of man, but can only come to manby his union with God.

59 Dan. 12:3 (Septuagint). <>o I Thess. 4:17. « Matt. 25:46.62 Cyril regards the last three texts as assurance of the fact that eternal life

is possible, as a gift of God, for man. He now collects passages to showhow it is mediated.

63 John 3:36. w John 5:24. 65 John 4:36. 66 John 12:25.

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

In others it is by preferring Christ before possessions or kins-folk; "And everyone that hath forsaken brethren or sisters . . .shall inherit everlasting life."67 In others it is by keeping thecommandments, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shaltnot kill" and the rest of that passage, as in Christ's reply tothe man who came to him and said, "Good Master, what shallI do that I may have eternal life?"68 And in others again it isby forsaking evil ways and thenceforth serving God, for Paulsays, "But now, being made free from sin, and become servantsto God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever-lasting life."6*

31. Yes, the discovering of eternal life takes place in manyways that I have passed over because they are so many. Forthe Lord is so loving towards us that he has not opened onedoor, or just two, but many doors of entry into eternal life,so that all might enjoy that life without hindrance, so far aslies with him. And for the present I will not exceed what Ihave said about eternal life, which is the last of the doctrinesin the profession of our faith, and its conclusion. Grant that allof us, by God's grace, both I your teacher and you my hearers,may attain to eternal life!

32. Finally, dear brethren, this course of instruction movesyou all to prepare your souls to receive the heavenly gifts. Asconcerns the holy and apostolic faith that was committed toyou to profess, I have, in the course of these forty days past,by the grace of the Lord, given as many lectures as waspossible.70 Not that these have said all that I should have said,for many points have been omitted, and things perhaps that

67 Matt. 19:29. 68 Mark 10:17-19. 69 Rom. 6:22.70 It thus appears that, for some reason, a second morning was required in

connection with every lecture. The photizomenoi, as has been said, in-cluded many who understood only Palestinian Aramaic, and so everythingsaid in Greek must have been said also in Aramaic. If an interpreter hadrendered Cyril's phrases, sentence by sentence, as he went along, hisGreek lectures could hardly have had the freshness and spontaneitywhich they have. Also they would have consumed an intolerable lengthof time. The greater probability seems to be that Cyril was himselfbilingual, and repeated in Aramaic the substance of each lecture de-livered in Greek, on a later day; or anticipated the Greek lecture, inAramaic, on the previous day. A regular alternation does not seempossible, when one Greek lecture refers to the previous one as havingbeen given "yesterday." Also there seems no possibility that this final"double-lecture'} could have been given again, afterwards, in Aramaic.How the language-group that was not being lectured to employed itselfcannot be determined.

THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES igi

have been the subject of sublimer thought by better teachers.For the rest, the holy Paschal day is at hand,71 and the enlight-enment of your dear selves through ' 'the laver of regeneration"72

in Christ. So you will be instructed once again,73 God willing,in the appropriate things, with what devotion and good orderyou are to enter as you are called, and for what purpose eachof the holy mysteries of baptism is accomplished; and againwith what reverence and good order you are to go forwardfrom your baptism to the holy altar of God and enjoy thespiritual and heavenly mysteries that belong to it. And this isto the end that your souls may be enlightened beforehand bythe course of instruction to appreciate the greatness of each ofthose graces that God vouchsafes to you.

33. After the holy and salvation-bringing feast of Easter,beginning on the Monday, you shall, God willing, hear furtherlectures, if you will come into the holy place of the resurrectioneach day of Easter week after the liturgy.74 In these you will beinstructed again in the reasons for each of the things that tookplace. You will be given proofs from the Old and New Testa-ments, first, of course, for the things that were done immediatelybefore your baptism, and next how you have been made cleanfrom your sins by the Lord "with the washing of water by theword,"75 then how that you have entered into the right to becalled "Christ" in virtue of your "priesthood,"76 then how you

71 They have only one night's sleep between then and Easter.72 Titus 3:5.73 This appears to refer, not to another lecture, but to preparation carried

out by the inferior clergy, the baptizands being taught individually.74 Cyril appears thus to propose six 'mystagogic" lectures. In the MSS we

have only five. I t is not very likely that the mystagogic lectures weretranscribed in the same year that the prebaptismal lectures were firsttranscribed. There is thus a strong probability that the lectures whichCyril is here announcing were not transcribed. The neophytes, for thesepost-paschal lectures, went into the courtyard west of the Martyry,where they stood around the sepulchre, and the bishop spoke to themfrom the very place where Christ rose from the dead. It is to be supposed,therefore, that these post-paschal lectures were much shorter and simplerthan the Lent lectures ; and the five mystagogic lectures in the manu-scripts have this character. They do not, however, fulfil accurately theforecast which Cyril is here giving.

75 Eph. 5 : 26.7̂ Hieratikds. The idea is that the chrism, or anointing with oil, is the unction

of priesthood, such as Aaron received, so that every Christian initiate isthe Lord's anointed (and since "Christ" means anointed, is a Christ).The third mystagogic lecture in the manuscripts seems to avoid anysuch emphasis upon the priesthood of the baptized laity as Cyril here lays.

ig2 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

have been given the "sealing" of fellowship with the HolySpirit, then about the mysteries of the altar of the new covenantwhich had their origin here,77 what Holy Scripture tells usabout them, with what virtue they are filled, then how thesemysteries are to be approached and when and how received,and so, finally, how for the rest of your life you must walkworthily of the grace you have received both by deed and word,so as all to attain to the enjoyment of eternal life. If God will,then, these lectures will be given.

34. "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord78 alway; andagain I say, Rejoice79: for your redemption" hath drawn"nigh."80 The celestial army of the angels looks for yoursalvation. And now is "the voice of one crying in the wilder-ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord." The prophet alsocries "Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,"and forthwith "Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye thatwhich is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness."81

It will not be long before you are listening to the reading ofthat lovely passage, "Be light, be light, O thou new Jerusalem;for thy light is come."82 And that is the Jerusalem of which theprophet said, "And afterwards thou shalt be called the city ofrighteousness, the faithful city Zion; for out of Zion shall goforth the law, and out of Jerusalem the word of the Lord."83

That word, in going forth from thence has been a graciousrain upon the whole earth. And the prophet speaks to that newJerusalem concerning you, and says, "Lift up thine eyes roundabout, and behold thy children gathered together,"84 whileshe replies "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as doveswith their young ones to me?"85 ("cloud" because you arespiritual, and "doves" because you are innocent). She proceeds,"who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things?shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall anation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, shebrought forth her children."86 The world shall be full of joyunspeakable, since the Lord hath said, "Behold I createJerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy."87

77 In Jerusalem. 78 Phil. 3:1. 79 Phil. 4:4.so Luke 21128. 81 Isa. 55:1, 2. 82 Isa. 60:1 (Septuagint).83 Isa. 1126; 2:3. 84 Isa. 49:18 (Septuagint).85 Isa. 60:8 (Septuagint). «6 Isa. 66:8.87 Isa. 65:18. The last Section (35) of this lecture has been omitted for

brevity.

A Letter of Cyril to Constantius

A letter of Saint Cyril, archbishop of Jerusalem, written on the seventhof May to the most religious sovereign, Constantius, concerning theportent of a cross of light that appeared in the sky and was seen from

Jerusalem1

To the emperor most beloved of God, the most religiousConstantius Augustus, from Cyril, the bishop in Jerusalem,greeting.

1. This first letter from Jerusalem I send to you, emperorbeloved of God; by way of first fruits,2 and one both fitting foryour reception and for me to send. I have filled it, not withwords of flattery but with divine portents full of heavenlymeaning, not with the winning persuasiveness of rhetoricalcomposition but with witness borne to you, by the course ofevents, of the truth of the things predicted in the holy Gospels.

2. For while other men have wherewith to weave many acrown for your beloved head, and offer circlets of gold setwith many-coloured and glittering stones, I offer you noearthly crown at all (since earthly gifts return to earth at last)but that which divine working has brought to pass in theheavens, accomplished in these times of your godly reign, which

1 The heading goes back to eleventh-century MSS. In the Munich MSmade by the sixteenth-century copyist Andrew Damarius it is simpler,and omits the date. This copy may well have been made from an examplarolder than the eleventh century. The day and month are in the text ofSection 4. The year is certainly A.D. 351, since fourth-century witnessesplace it between Gallus being made Caesar (15 March, 351) and thebattle of Mursa (28 September, 351). Magnentius, a commander inGaul, conspired against the emperor Constans in the early days of 350.Constantius, soon afterwards, experienced relief from the pressure of thePersians, after their failure in the siege of Nisibis (end of 349), and de-clined negotiations with Magnentius, whom he defeated first at Mursa,and destroyed somewhat over a year later. Thus in May 351 Constantiuswas gathering his force against the western usurper.

2 The implication is that Cyril had not been bishop very long. On theother hand, some delay in presenting first-fruits to the emperor is excusedby the choice character of the gift now for this purpose placed fromheaven in Cyril's hands. Cyril speaks as if, from him, first-fruits mightbe considered due; because, presumably, of the imperial foundations inhis see, giving him a position analogous to that of a Dean of the ChapelsRoyal. Canon 7 of Nicaea had left Jerusalem suffragan to Caesarea inspiritualibus, but Cyril might feel himself directly a client of the emperorin administering his temporalities.13—cj. 193


I hasten to bring to the knowledge of your piety. I do not, ofcourse, mean that you are coming now for the first time fromignorance to knowledge of God (for you have been forward toteach others by your religious conversation), but I write to addconfirmation to what you know, so that as you have receivedimperial sovereignty by paternal inheritance3 you should learnto be honoured by God with greater heavenly crowns, or ratherthat you should now both return fitting thanks to God theKing of all, and also be filled with greater courage in the faceof your enemies,4 as you understand, from the marvellouswork of God on your behalf, to what effect your sovereigntyis made the object of his love.

3. For, in the days of Constantine your father, most dearto God and of blessed memory, there was discovered the woodof the cross fraught with salvation,5 because the divine gracethat gave piety to the pious seeker vouchsafed the finding of

3 There was nothing of heredity in the notion of the office of emperor(imperator). But Constantine (himself the natural son of ConstantiusChlorus) being, like his father, very much a leader of Gaulish andGermanic soldiery, was familiar with the hereditary kingship that pre-vailed among nations outside the empire, and succeeded in getting thearmies to accept his sons as co-emperors. With the usurpation of Magnen-tius, the dynastic conception was again in jeopardy. But it was one thatcommended itself to the people of the east.

4 As a centre for pilgrims, Jerusalem received the world's news. Cyril showsa fine appreciation of the moment of crisis in the emperor's life at which(as he held) God had declared that the cause of Constantius was belovedto him. Cyril's letter, no doubt, was of no small effect upon the spirit ofConstantius, and so upon the course of events.

5 Cyril refers to the wood of the cross having been discovered, and widelydistributed, in Lectures iv (10), x (19) and xm (4). But he tells nothingof the circumstances. The story of Helena, the mother of Constantine,discovering three crosses, and distinguishing the cross of Christ by amiracle, is due to Rufinus (Church History, x. 7, 8), in whose Latin versionand continuation of the Church History of Eusebius it appears for the firsttime. This work dates from 403, six years after the author had returnedfrom Palestine to Italy. The story was probably that current in Jerusalemin the 390s. It makes Helena discover the crosses on Golgotha under amound surmounted by a shrine of Venus. This is so similar to the storyin Eusebius, Life of Constantine, (iii. 26-28) of the discovery of the holysepulchre under a mound surmounted by a shrine of Venus, that Theo-doret makes the two stories into one. As Rufinus speaks of silver casketscontaining pieces of the wood of the cross found by Helena as being stillshown for veneration in Jerusalem, we may reasonably connect thediscovery of the cross with the empress' visit; but conclude that popularfancy had early confused the circumstances with those of the uncoveringof the sepulchre, as well as adorning with legend the historical facts ofthe "invention" of the cross.

LETTER OF CYRIL TO GONSTANTIUS IQ5

the buried holy places.6 But in your time, your Majesty, mostreligious of emperors, victorious through a piety towards Godgreater even than that which you inherited, are seen wonderfulworks, not from the earth any more, but from the heavens.The trophy of the victory over death of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, I mean the blessedcross, has been seen at Jerusalem blazing with refulgentlight!

4. For in these very days of the holy feast of Pentecost,7

on the Nones8 of May, about the third hour9 a gigantic crossformed of light appeared in the sky above holy Golgotha10

stretching out as far as the holy Mount of Olives. It was notseen by just one or two, but was most clearly displayed before

6 The discovery of holy sites in Jerusalem seems to have begun with theunearthing of the sepulchre. In the Life of Constantine, iii. 26, Eusebiusimplies that the position of the sepulchre was known to the Christians,while Constantine's letter (iii. 30) would seem to show that they hadsought excavation under Licinius and been refused. See also Eusebius,Theophany, iii. 61 describing the isolated rock with one single tomb, fitfor an unique burial. Eusebius says that Constantine ordered the buildingof a "house of prayer" "near the Saviour's tomb," and goes on to describethe Martyry. To this we must join the references to be found in Cyril'slectures, where (in iv. 10, 14, x. 19, xin. 4, 39) the Martyry is said to beon Golgotha. Golgotha may have been determined as being between thesepulchre and the road to the north, though Cyril (xm. 39) says the rockthere was riven, which may have determined, or partly determined, theidentification of the site. Cyril, in the Epistle, may mention the findingof the cross before the finding of the holy places because of the theme ofthis letter being the cross. The silence of Eusebius regarding the crosswould suggest that the discovery of the sepulchre came first. But Cyril'sreference, in the letter, to "buried holy places" (in the plural) maymean that the wood identified as the cross was dug up on Golgotha.While he chiefly associates the Martyry with the crucifixion, he callsit (xiv. 14) "this holy Church of the Resurrection of God our Saviour,"since the sepulchre, garden court, and Martyry, together, formedone complex of buildings to testify to the acts which accomplished oursalvation.

7 May 7 always falls in the "fifty days" between Easter and Whitsun.8 The name Nones was given to the ninth day before the Ides (or "half-

month-day") in each month. In March, May, July and October the Ideswas the 15th day, and in the other months the 13th. So, in May., theNones fell on the 7th, the Ides being included in the nine days.

9 Nine, a.m.10 The phenomenon may be reasonably supposed to have been a parhelion,

arising from some atmospheric condition of the time. It was witnessed fromGolgotha, and so would appear in the sky to the south-east of the city.It would only be "above holy Golgotha" in Cyril's mind, but the northernarm might seem to him to be above the Mount of Olives to his east.


the whole population of the city.11 Nor did it, as one mighthave supposed, pass away quickly like something imagined,but was visible to sight above the earth for some hours, whileit sparkled with a light above the sun's rays. Of a surety, itwould have been overcome and hidden by them had it notexhibited to those who saw it a brilliance more powerful thanthe sun,12 so that the whole population of the city made asudden concerted rush into the Martyry, seized by a fear thatmingled with joy at the heavenly vision. They poured in,young and old, men and women of every age, even to maidenshitherto kept in the seclusion of their homes,13 local folk andstrangers together, not only Christians but pagans from else-where sojourning in Jerusalem;14 all of them as with onemouth raised a hymn of praise to Christ Jesus our Lord, theonly-begotten Son of God, the worker of wonders. For theyrecognized in fact and by experience that the most religiouscreed of Christians is "not with enticing words of wisdom, butin demonstration of the Spirit and of power,"15 not somethingmerely preached by men, but having witness borne to it byGod from the heavens.

5. Therefore, seeing that we, the dwellers in Jerusalem, have

11 The cross of light seen by Constantine in the afternoon sky during one ofhis Gaulish campaigns before A.D. 313, of which he told Eusebius, whorecorded the story, with all appearance of careful accuracy {Life ofConstantine, i. 28), was witnessed by the whole army on the march. It,also, may have been a parhelion, and as important in its effect upon themind of the emperor concerned as the subject of Cyril's letter. It is oneof the curiosities of history that, in 351, the manuscript of the Life ofConstantine was lying at Gaesarea uncopied, and perhaps unread. It isquite likely that we owe its publication to Cyril's nephew Gelasius, inthe later days of his episcopate at Caesarea. Gelasius wrote a continuationof the Church History of Eusebius which furnished Rufinus with a gooddeal of his supplement to his translation of Eusebius, and survives onlyby that means.

12 Had the direct view of the sun not been greatly tempered by the atmos-pheric condition that caused the cross-shaped parhelion, the cross, onCyril's showing, would have been too fiercely bright to look at. Clearlythis was not so, and the explanation in terms of a parhelion is accordinglystrengthened.

J3 Such girls went out, as need might be, escorted and closely veiled. Onthis occasion their coming out was so hasty that the proprieties weresacrificed.

!4 It thus appears that residence in Jerusalem was almost as much controlledas in the days of Nehemiah, but now as a Christian sacred city. Sozomen,Church History, iv. 5, says that pilgrims carried the news of the Cross inthe sky at Jerusalem all over the world.

15 I Cor. 2:4.

LETTER OF CYRIL TO GONSTANTIUS 197

seen with our own eyes this marvellous occurrence and haverendered to God the universal King and to the only-begottenSon of God the thankful adoration that is due, and will sotender: and have moreover made, as we will yet make, in theHoly Places, continued prayer for your reign as emperor dearto God,16 we must not consign these God-given sights in theheavens to silence, but tell your sacred piety the joyful news.Without delay, I have hastened to dispatch this letter, so that,upon the good foundation of the faith you already possess, youmight build up the knowledge of the recent divine manifesta-tion, and so receive yet stronger confidence in our Lord JesusChrist. At the same time you will be filled with your usualcourage as having God himself upon your side, and will themore readily advance under the trophy of the cross,17 usingthe sign that appeared in heaven as a crowning glory, in whichheaven itself has gloried the more in showing forth its shape tomen.

6. Now this portent, God-beloved emperor, has been nowaccomplished in accordance with the testimonies of the pro-phets18 and with the sacred words of Christ contained in theGospels, but in days to come it will be accomplished morefully.19 For in the Gospel according to Matthew the Saviourgives a knowledge of things to come to his blessed apostles,and, through them, spoke to those who came after them, sayingin the most lucid way, "And then shall appear the sign of theSon of man in heaven."20 And if you will take into your handsthis sacred book of the Gospels, as you are wont to do, youwill find therein written down the prophetic testimony to this16 The Christians of Jerusalem feel themselves, more than other citizens,

bound to this duty as clients of the emperor.17 Constantius' troops marched under the Christian form of standard with

which Constantine had largely replaced the legionary eagles. The prestigeof this form of standard would be renewed, Cyril implies, by the signwhich had just been given from heaven. What he is writing to the em-peror, it is his hope will be used to reinvigorate the morale of his soldiery.

!8 In Lecture xm. 41, Cyril supposes Zech. 12:10-12 to foretell the secondcoming of Christ accompanied by the sign of the cross. The same lecturehas many asserted prophecies of Christ's crucifixion.

19 In Lecture xv. 22, Cyril interprets Matt. 24:30 as meaning that whenChrist comes in judgement, his presence will be heralded by a sign of aluminous cross. As Antichrist could not use this sign, it secures the faithfulagainst deception. That the Christians of Jerusalem had received suchteaching, fully explains their behaviour on 7 May, 351. The morrow'sretrospect brings Cyril to the conclusion that what has just happenedis the more significant because it bears the seal of Christ, in an anticipationof his final sign. 20 Matt. 24:30.


fact. And I beseech your majesty in particular to make thesethings the subject of your more frequent meditation, becauseof the other things that are written out in order in the sameplace.21 These matters that were foretold by our Saviour callfor diligence mingled with great reverence, if we are to take noharm from the power that works against us.

7. To you, emperor most dear to God, I offer these words asfirst fruits. I send forth from Jerusalem this first call,22 to you whoare the noblest and most religious fellow-worshipper with us ofChrist the only-begotten Son of God and our Saviour, whoaccomplished the world's salvation by dying according to theScriptures at Jerusalem, where he trod death underfoot,23

washed out the sins of men with his own precious blood, andobtained for all those that believe in him life, and incorruption,and spiritual grace from heaven. May his power and gracecheer and protect you with the adornment of brighter andgreater religious deeds, and may almighty God, the giver ofall goodness make you proud with royal shoots of noble sons,24

21 Cyril means the signs of the coming of Antichrist, to be sought in thepolitical sphere, taken to be implied in the warning of Matt. 24:36-end;so that in minding this warning we shall not be caught when Antichristreveals himself.

22 The imperial benefactions make Gonstantius a sharer in the privilegesof the Jerusalem Church, which thus has a special responsibility to him.

23 Apprecia t ion of the e m p t y t o m b as evidence of Christ 's victory wasevidently m u c h revived by the recovery of the sepulchre .

24 I n the summer of 350, Magnen t ius proposed all iance to Constant ius ,based on the mar r i age of Magnen t ius to Constant ius ' sister, a n d ofConstantius to Magnentius' daughter. The proposal argues that the firstwife of Constantius, married in 336, was now dead, leaving him a child-less widower. Constantius had only Gallus and Julian as kinsmen andso possible colleagues and successors, now that Constans and Nepotianwere dead. Constantius' need of a son was urgent, all the more in hisrejection of alliance with the murderer of Constans. Cyril evidentlyknew, in May 351, that the two things which Constantius sought fromheaven were success in the field and success in marriage. The first cameto him at Mursa in September. Julian, in his panegyric upon the empressEusebia, a noblewoman of Thessalonica and of great personal gifts,says that Constantius, when he had repossessed himself of his inheritedempire by the defeat of the usurper, sought marriage for the sake of sonswho should inherit his honours and authority. Only after long delibera-tion and careful enquiries did he decide that Eusebia was the personworthy to be empress of the whole world. If this last point is not purelyrhetorical, the emperor's intention to marry again must have been knownfor some time before it was accomplished. It is likely to have been madepublic before Gallus was made Caesar in March 351, to set that politicalstep in its right perspective. Eusebia did not in fact bear a son, so thatJulian became Constantius' heir.

LETTER OF CYRIL TO GONSTANTIUS I99

and keep you and all your house, for many cycles of peacefulyears, the boast of Christians and the pride of the whole world.

8. May the God of all grant to us and all people that you,Augustus and emperor beloved of God, may be strong,adorned with every virtue, displaying your wonted solicitudefor the holy churches and the sovereignty of Rome, and shiningwith yet greater rewards of piety through many cycles ofpeaceful years, ever to glorify the holy and consubstantial25

Trinity, our true God, to whom, as is due, be all glory, worldwithout end. Amen.25 The appearance of this word (homoousios) in the conclusion of the letter

has caused doubts of its authenticity to be entertained. But the wholephrase beginning "ever to glorify" is missing from the manuscript ofDamarius, who habitually copied ancient MSS, to sell the copies in thewest. There is probability that this omission in his sixteenth-centuryMunich transcript reflects the fact that a copy of Cyril's letter to Constan-tius considerably older than the surviving copies, had not the conclusioncontaining the suspect phrase. The addition of such an ending is entirelycomprehensible on the part of an ecclesiastical scribe, particularly invindication of Cyril's reputation for orthodoxy. On the side of the authen-ticity of the letter there is the improbability of a forger seizing so accuratelythe situation of early 351, or getting Cyril's style and vocabulary so well.This last point is debated in the Abbe ToutteVs preface (reproduced byReischl and Rupp, p. 430). The striking expression for "a crowningglory" (kaukema kaukematon) used at the end of Section 5 appears alsoin Lecture 1. 13. And there are a number of other, if less striking, corres-pondences with the language of the lectures. The text of the letter maytherefore be trusted, if suspicion is confined to the conventional concludingphrase, which we may regard as being a scribal addition.

NEMESIUS

BISHOP OF EMESA

General Introduction

THE AUTHOR

aNUMBER OF M A N U S C R I P T S OF T H E WORKOn the nature of man are headed with the name ofL Nemesius, bishop of Emesa. The first mention of any

such person by other writers is not till the seventh century,when Maximus the Confessor1 (580-662) and AnastasiusSinaita2 (630-700) cite passages from the work in question andname the author as Nemesius, bishop of Emesa. But they showno signs of knowing anything about him, and we must supposethem to have been, just as we are, dependent on the manu-script heading for their ability to name the author of the work.The tendency is for works of obscure authors to be fatheredupon someone better known.3 Where, as here, the name of anotherwise unknown person comes down in manuscript tradi-tion, it can safely be accepted as that of the true author.

Of the author's see, at least, something is known. Emesa is

1 Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, xci. 277.2 Anastasius, Quaestiones (xviii), Migne, Patrologia Graeca, xcix. 505.

The Syriac writer Moses bar Cephas (tenth century) cites our authorunder the title "Numysius the Christian philosopher," but this is likewisepure inference from the work itself. (De Paradiso, Pt, I. c. 20, Migne,Patrologia Graeca, cxi. 508.)

3 This happened to all or parts of our work. Chs. n and in are often found,under the title On the soul, attributed to Gregory of Nyssa. The whole workis attributed to Gregory in an eleventh-century Augsburg manuscriptamong others. One eighteenth-century Augsburg manuscript attributesit to "Adamantion," while a twelfth-century Florentine copy, and oneat the Bodleian at Oxford, calls the author "Adamantion, who is alsoNemesius, bishop of Emesa." So much confusion arose that there arecopies that attribute the work to "Gregory of Emesa," or "Nemesius ofNyssa." The attribution to Gregory Nyssen probably helped to get thework more widely known than it would have been under its rightful name.

203

204 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

a city on the upper reaches of the Orontes, where the river,emerging from the valley between Libanus and Antilibanus,flows through a fertile plain. It stood on the trade-route thatran southwards through Damascus, and at the point of shortesttransit across the desert to Palmyra.4 It throve upon nomadindustries, as well as on those of rural Syria. It was, in short,though not one of Syria's greatest cities, at least a prosperousand important city of the second rank. From pre-Christianantiquity its celebrity arose from a famous temple of thesun-god, whose cult was served by a dynasty of Syrian priest-princes,5 who ruled over a sacred territory in the Orontes plain.The fortune of Emesa began to be made, towards the end of thesecond Christian century, when a daughter of this priestlyhouse, Julia Domna, married the African, Septimius Severus,who was emperor, 193-211. Her son, the emperor Caracalla,raised Emesa to the status of a Roman colony. In 218 thelegions in Syria called to the purple the young prince-priest ofEmesa, Elagabalus. He was succeeded as emperor by hiscousin Alexander Severus, and under these Syrian emperorsEmesa received t h e ^ italicum and the title of metropolis.6 In272 Aurelian beautified the famous temple at Emesa, and notfar from the city inflicted upon his eastern rival, the empressZenobia of Palmyra, a final defeat.7 Emesa received its last4 The oasis city of Palmyra enabled travellers to cross the desert between

the Euphrates valley and Syria-Palestine in two stages, and, at troubledtimes, with greater safety than by the roads of north Syria. Palladius,in his Dialogue (c.71 ) on the history of John Chrysostom speaks ofPalmyra, at the beginning of the fifth century, as a barbarous outpost ofempire over against the Persians, to which the Joannite Cyriacus,bishop of Synnada in Phrygia, was exiled. He describes Palmyra as "80miles further inland than Emesa." Le Quien, in his Oriens Christianas(ii. 837), mis-read this to say that Cyriacus was bishop of Emesa, and sogives Nemesius a successor who never existed. The blunder is perpetuatedby P. B. Gams, Series Episcoporum (Ratisbon 1873).

s The dynasty was of Arab race and unknown antiquity. Cicero namesSampsigeramus as prince of Emesa, and the names of two other princes,before Elagabalus, are recorded. The dynasty assisted Rome in the Jewishwar of A.D. 68-70 (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xix. 8). Aristobulusmarried the daughter of Sampsigeramus (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities,xviii. 4). Drusilla, wife of Felix, of Acts 24:24, had been proposed as wifeto Azizus, prince of Emesa, who was succeeded by Zoemus (Josephus,op. cit. xx. 7-8), ally of the Romans (Josephus, Jewish War, vii. 7). TheEmesenes were thus strongly Romanophile.

6 The evidence is numismatic.7 After the defeat and capture of Valerian by the Persians in 258, Odenae,

prince of Palmyra, thus obtained control of the eastern empire and wassucceeded by his widow Zenobia. The Hellenized cities of Syria grew


secular advancement at the end of the fourth century, whenArcadius created a new province of Lebanese Phoenicia andmade Emesa its capital.

How Christianity came to Emesa is not known, but it wasprobably before the third century. The Augustan History creditsElagabalus with intending to build at Rome a temple of all thecults, including the Christiana devotio, and Alexander Severuswith similar syncretism, embracing a recognition of Christ.8

Emesa claimed to have had martyrs in the last persecution,though whether belonging to the church of the city is uncertain.Eusebius tells of martyrdoms at Emesa, including that ofSilvanus "bishop of the churches about Emesa," a phrasewhich is probably equivalent to "bishop of Emesa," but mightmean that within Emesa the church was not established instrength.9 The church of Emesa comes clearly into the light ofhistory when, in 341, the Edessan Eusebius, whom Jerome calls"the standard-bearer of the Arian party" became its bishopand so continued till 359.10 Emesa had another famous bishopin the fifth century, in the person of Paul who secured fromCyril of Alexandria in 433 the acceptance of the Formula ofUnion, drawn up by the Syrian bishops who had broken withhim in 432 after the Council of Ephesus.

Sozomen, writing at about that date, says that "the churchof Emesa is one most worthy to see, and famous for its beauty."11

The great mosque of Horns (as Emesa is now called) appears toembody remains both of a Christian church and of an olderpagan temple. So the "fair church" of 430 may have replaced,and in part used, a former temple; though not the famoustemple of the sun, since that was on a hill outside the city.From 453 the Church of Emesa claimed to possess the headof St. John Baptist, brought there secretly, it was said, from

restive under this Arab rule and appealed to the western emperorAurelian for deliverance.

8 The Augustan History recounts that Alexander had a statue of Christ inhis domestic chapel.

9 Church History, viii. 13 and ix. 6. These martyrdoms are recorded astaking place under Maximin Daia, Augustus in the east after the deathof Galerius. They are therefore to be dated 312. The martyrs may havebeen brought into Emesa, for trial and execution, from the surroundingcountry.

!0 Jerome mentions Eusebius in these terms in his Chronicle under the tenthyear of Constantius, and in his work On famous men speaks of him as awriter. He enjoyed popularity as an exegete. George of Laodicea delivereda panegyric on him, which Socrates summarizes in his Church History, ii. 9.

11 Chnrch History, iii. 17.

2O6 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

Jerusalem.12 Through that relic it is probable that Emesagave to the Church universal the observance of 29 August asthe Feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist. Pagan Emesaclaimed among its sons the sophist Fronto in the third Christiancentury, and Ulpian and Sallustius in the fourth. From theseparticulars concerning the church and city we may concludethat the author of our treatise was a person of some importancein his times. We have now to see what the treatise itself revealsabout him.

First, Nemesius knows that the name of Origen is breathedupon, but not that his memory has been subject to formalcondemnation.13 He can hardly, therefore, have written laterthan the year 400 at latest. He treats the heresies of Apolli-narius and Eunomius as affairs of his own time, and seems toknow about the Antiochene Theodore who became bishopof Mopsuestia in 392. All these facts point to the last decadeof the fourth century as the time when Nemesius was writinghis book. As to his own personality Nemesius had no intentionof revealing anything. He writes in the impersonal style thatwas in the best literary tradition of his times, weaves togetheraccepted views and ideas, and eschews all appearance oforiginality. Nevertheless, we cannot miss the fact that he is aman of liberal Greek education, widely read in philosophy,and having an independent and considered attitude towardsthe Neo-Platonic revival of philosophy that had been inprogress for some two centuries. But the most striking fact abouthis learning is the extent of his medical knowledge. No lessthan fifteen treatises of Galen, the "father of Greek medicine,"

12 The story as told in the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes is that twoSyrian monks went, in the days of Constantine, as pilgrims to Jerusalem.The Baptist revealed to them in a dream the spot (in the ruins of Herod'spalace at Jerusalem, not at Machaerus) where his head lay. On theirjourney home they were robbed of the wallet containing the sacred relicby an Emesene potter who supposed it to be full of treasure. The Baptistnow warned the thief of the nature of his booty, and he hid the relic ina cave near Emesa where, in the fifth century, it was rediscoveredby monks. The Paschal Chronicle says that the Baptist's head was discoveredin the city of Emesa in Holy Week of the year of empress Pulcheria'sdeath (452). {Corp. Script. Hist. Byzant, Pasch. Chron. II. pp. 418-9.)

13 In the late fourth century, Origen became the object of hatred by thenative Egyptian monks, to please whom Theophilus, patriarch ofAlexandria, proclaimed the condemnation of his memory in 399. Thiscondemnation was repeated at Rome in 400. Epiphanius and Jerome ledan attempt to purge the east of the theological influence of Origen whichwas violent in the early years of the fifth century.


have left their mark upon his pages, and he shows a power ofgoing beyond Galen and even of correcting him. The inferencethat would seem obvious today, that he had been in practiceas a physician before he became a bishop, cannot safely bedrawn, because of the conditions of medical knowledge andpractice in the ancient world. Medical knowledge developedamong the Greeks as a branch of philosophy and a part ofgeneral education. The treatment of sicknesses and wounds,on the other hand, was recognized to be an art, which requiredapprenticeship and placed its possessor on very special termswith society in view of the intimacy of his relations with hispatients and their households. To the lasting profit of mankind,Greek medical practitioners recognized that their officerequired of them a high standard of professional honour. Sothey bound their apprentices with a religious oath, the Hippo-cratic oath,14 to a code of professional etiquette which protectedthe interests of the profession and of its patients at one and thesame time.

We must note that medical science and the physicians' artwere, even more than they are today, distinguishable quantities.The professional physician was ideally15 a man of science, aswell as trained in his art. But it was possible to have medicalscience and not practise. Men of science were, in fact, to befound in great number among those whom high social positionfreed from the necessity of earning a livelihood, while theapprenticed physician looked to live on his fees. We mustconsider the possibility that Nemesius was not a practitionerbut a gentleman amateur. On the one hand, no single passagein his book betrays the practitioner. On the other, he describesthe false goods with which men delude themselves as follows:"to be rolling in wealth; to plume oneself on public honours;and to find complacency in the possession of other blessings ofthis present life.55 The phrasing might fit a person who hadknown these things. We are fortunate in having an example ofa gentleman-amateur of medicine in Caesarius,16 the brotherof Gregory Nazianzen, of Nemesius5 own generation. Son of a

14 See W. H. S. Jones, The Doctor's Oath, Cambridge, 1924, or Vol. I of theLoeb edition of Hippocrates, pp. 291-301.

15 There was no public control of medical practice to ensure qualificationor to prevent the public being victimized by charlatans. Accordingly themedical knowledge possessed by amateurs in medicine who were menof respectability was at a premium.

16 The story is told by Gregory in the funeral oration which he made overhis brother.

2O8 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

Christian landed family in Cappadocia, Caesarius was bornabout 330, and went, some twenty years later, to seek a generaleducation at Alexandria. His principal studies were mathe-matics and "medicine in so far as it treats of physiology andtemperament and the causes of disease, in order to remove itsroots." There is no word here of surgery or the physician's art.It is medical science, and the assisting of nature to maintainhealth. At these studies Gregory declares his brother to havebeen brilliant. Caesarius now betook himself to Constantinopleto seek a career at court. It was his medical knowledge,Gregory says, that gained him notice and so won him a place inthe Imperial household. But this post was financial, and in duecourse it was to high financial office in the province of Bithyniathat it led him. Meanwhile, Gregory says, many calledCaesarius in as a physician, although he had not taken theHippocratic oath, and he gave his services without fee. Thisexample invites three observations. First, good family and somereputation for learning or letters (and sometimes the latterwithout the former) opened the way to high public officewithout any apprenticeship in lower offices.17 Next, medicalknowledge was suited to an aristocrat because he owned slaveswhose health was his wealth. Finally, as Christians could nottake the Hippocratic oath, and the Christian part of society wasincreasing daily, emphasis at this time was on medical sciencewithout apprenticeship. Eunapius18 tells us of Magnus ofNisibis, indentured pupil of the physician Zeno of Cyprus,nevertheless going to Alexandria and opening a "public"school of medicine.

It was, no doubt, in consideration of such facts that theseventeenth century prince of church historians, Le Nain deTillemont, so far from thinking that our author had been apractitioner, suggested his possible identity with the Nemesiuswho was provincial governor of Cappadocia for a short while17 Thus Aurelius Victor, a man of humble origin, but a man of letters and

historian, was given governorship in Pannonia by Julian and continueda public career under his successors. The poet Cyrus gained the favour ofthe Empress Eudocia and was made exarch of Constantinople. Examplesof men of social as well as literary distinction thus advanced to publicoffice could be multiplied indefinitely.

18 Eunapius, born in 347 and living into the fifth century, was a historianof his times, with a strong anti-Christian bias. He wrote Lives of the sophiststo record the pagan men of learning of the cultural age that was in rapiddecay after the death of Julian. In this work he records the physicianZeno of Cyprus, and his pupils Magnus, Oribasius and Ionicus, asiatrosophists, practitioners who were also men of science.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

between 383 and 389,19 and known to us through GregoryNazianzen,20 who spent those last six years of his life in retire-ment in Cappadocia. The governor was not a Christian, butadmired Gregory as a man of letters and sought his friendship.Gregory tells us that while Nemesius made philosophy ofgoverning, he longed for release from public office that hemight devote himself to pure philosophy. Gregory claims thatNemesius undertook, when freed from office, to discuss withhim the dogmas of the faith. He urges that the best monumentof his governorship that Nemesius can leave is that he shouldleave it to become a Christian, and that the best spoils he canhave from his tenure of office is to have found "the pearlof great price." As Gregory describes himself as agedand ill, and as we can assume a short tenure of office onNemesius' part, the whole episode may be included in thespan 385-8.

Assuming that Nemesius was baptized by 390, he would bemarked out as a recruit to the clerical order, so soon as heceased to be a neophyte. Having passed a governorship, noobstacles to ordination under the Theodosian law of 39021

against ordaining curials could apply to him. We might almostexpect him to be a bishop before the century ended. And if hewas not the bishop of Emesa, we might wonder how history lostsight of him.

One difficulty must be noticed. Gregory calls Nemesius ajurist trained in the Roman law. The work On the nature of manshows no interest in questions of law. Its ideal of society is thefree Greek city, not the empire. And yet these traits are notincompatible with an ex-governor who had put the unlovedcircumstances of his secular career behind him when he enteredthe font. Tillemont's suggested identification cannot thereforebe called unreasonable. It was generally accepted till the begin-ning of the nineteenth century, when J. A. Fabricius urged thatmany men named Nemesius may have been prominent at thetime. He thus started a wave of scepticism, which encouragedCanon Venables, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, to say"we may safely reject the suggestion favoured by Tillemont."And six years later, Dietrich Bender set out to prove thatour author could not be Gregory's friend, but with signal

!9 Memoires, ix. 5 4 1 , 6 0 1 .20 Epistles 79, 183, 184, 185 and a poem, No. 61, of 334 lines addressed to

Nemesius.21 Theodosian Code, xii. 1. 121, dated 17 June.

14—c.j.


unsuccess.22 We shall do best to return a verdict of non liquet.But the careers of Gregory's friend and Gregory's brother bringbefore the imagination the kind of history our author is likelyto have had. When we consider the theme of our treatise, itceases to be surprising that the author gave such pride of placeto medical science. His fundamental interest is in ethics andthe pursuit of true virtue. His originality is to have seen thathowever separable body and soul may be, notionally, at leastin waking life their union is absolute. Before we can discusswhat soul should do, we must be fully informed what body does.The seeker after a true ethic must therefore go to school withthe physicians, and learn the facts of the body. The classicalteachers of ethics had made ethics comparable with equitation,with soul as horseman and body as mount.23 Nemesius sees thatwhat we have to do with is more like a centaur than man andmount. The fact that Galen is his favourite author thereforeneeds no further explanation. It is evident that Nemesius hadthought deeply about ethical problems in independence of theBible and Christian dogma. This suggests that conversion cameto him late in life. His mind is in some ways very "unecclesi-astical." Thus, while he criticizes the heretics Apollinarius andEunomius with acuteness (for he has a very fine sense oforthodoxy)24 there is no trace of odium theologicum. He applies

22 I n Untersuchungen zu Nemesius von Emesa, Leipzig, 1898.23 T h e simile of t he c e n t a u r , not ac tua l ly used by Nemesius , is used by

Basil, b ishop of Ancyra , 336 -360 , in a work On virginity m a r k e d by a veryrealistic view of the rela t ion of soul a n d body. J e r o m e , in his not ice ofBasil in his work On famous men ment ions this work a n d says t h a t Basilwas learned in medicine. Suidas, in the tenth century, says that Basilwas a physician by profession, but this may be no more than a misunder-standing of Jerome. Basil's career would suggest the probability that hewas another gentleman-amateur in medical science.

24 Nemesius belongs recognizably to the Ant iochene school of Chr i s t i andoctrine which was reaching the height of its achievements at the timeof his episcopate. Its leading exponents were Diodore, bishop of Tarsus,Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, and, later, Theodoret, bishop ofCyrrhus, all natives of Antioch. John Chrysostom, greatest of preachersand exegetes, and Nestorius, condemned for heresy, were also Antio-chenes, who both held and were deposed from the patriarchate ofConstantinople. The Antiochene school was strongly interested in thehistorical character of the Gospel and the true manhood of Christ.Antiochene exegetes avoided ailegorism and sought the literal sense ofScripture. Antiochenes generally found it difficult to show adequatelythe unity of Christ's theandric person, and it is one of the distinctionsof Nemesius that, as far as can be judged from a work that does notexplicitly expound a Christology, he would have been clear from the


Wisdom 4:10,11 to Socrates equally with the Christianmartyrs. This, naively done, is like a man who has not had timeto be shaped to ecclesiastical rigidity. His book, moreover, isunfinished, and bears the signs of lack of revision, so that wemay conjecture that death overtook him.25 We may concludethat when he became a bishop, he had not been many years aChristian, and that his episcopate was short. Nevertheless, itwould appear to have made him change the character of abook projected in lay, if not in pre-Christian, days. He setout to write an anthropology. He ended with a polemicagainst fatalism, and a defence of the Christian doctrineof divine providence. In this we may see the effect of pastoralexperience in a Syrian city, where fatalism was the perennialfoe.

Our author's medical knowledge is not limited to the writtenword of Galen, whom, on occasion, he both supplements andcorrects. The probability therefore is that, like Caesarius, hewas first schooled in medical science in youth, before he pursuedit for philosophic reasons. We may sum up by saying that, inthese ways, though without his knowing it, the book disclosesthe man, in no slight degree.26

charge of "Nestorianism," or seeing in Christ the moral union betweena divine and a human person.

The Cappadocian school, led by Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen,Gregory Nyssen, and Amphilochius of Iconium shared many of theAntiochene interests, but were influenced by Origen as the Antiocheneswere not. Nemesius' attitude to Origen would be explained if we couldsurely identify him with the governor of Cappadocia. While both schoolscombined Platonic and Aristotelian ideas in the philosophic backgroundto their doctrinal thinking, the Cappadocians inclined towards Platonismwhile the Antiochenes leaned rather towards Aristotle. Nemesius passesjudgement on the Christological principles of the Antiochene Theodore,with acuteness.

25 T h u s the th i rd p a r a g r a p h of Section 61 promises to discuss creat ion a n dthe difference be tween creat ion and providence. No such discussion isreached . T h e r e a re similar unfulfilled forecasts earlier in the book, asw h e n the end of Section 4 promises a discussion of the difference betweenthe pursui t of godliness and the pursui t of virtues. Signs of unreviseddraft ing a re frequent, and a t tent ion is called to them in the notes.

26 VV. W . J a e g e r , JVemesios von Emesa, Ber l in . 1914, d e d u c e s , from N e m e s i u s 'teaching that contemplation is man's highest activity and from thedouble standard in c. xviii of front-rank men and rear-rank men invirtue's army, that Nemesius was a monk. This seems to go too tar.Nemesius is so tolerant of the world in which men enjoy the cheer ofsociety and the comforts of home that it is more likely that, howeverhe venerated those who went into the desert for the sake of contemplation,he had not taken that step himself before his ordination.


THE WORK

Hippocrates,27 who lived in the fifth century before Christand may be called first father of scientific medicine, wrote atract On the nature of man2* in which he argued that pleasure andpain would be inconceivable but for the differences between thematerial elements of which the body is composed, and thatthe physician's work would fall to the ground if it did not liein righting the maladjustment of elements in the humanconstitution. Equally, where there is suffering it must have asubject. This theme is the clue to Nemesius' argument for thecontinual interaction of soul and body. Nemesius may, in fact,be taken to acknowledge his debt, in adopting the title firstused by Hippocrates. But the interest of Nemesius is not purelymedical, or even ethical. It is religious and spiritual. His bookOn the nature of man is, in short, essentially a piece of Christianapologetic. Starting from the axiom that man consists of souland body, Nemesius spends his first three chapters in establish-ing, against all rival theories, that the soul is an incorporealsubstance, self-moving, and having the body as its instrument.Into this argument he weaves a theme for which he was(indirectly) indebted to Posidonius29; that of the universe as acontinuous ascending scale of being, in which the lower andsimpler subserves the needs of the higher and more complex,until the crown of all is reached in man, whose possession of

27 See note to Section 15. There is an edition of the Hippocratic writingsin the Loeb Library, with a useful introduction by the editor, Dr. W. H. S.Jones.

28 The relation of the existing text to Hippocrates is much debated. Whatmatters for our purpose is that Nemesius knew a tract On the nature of manattributed to the great physician of antiquity.

29 Posidonius, pupil of the Stoic Panaetius, flourished a century beforeChrist, and travelled much in the west, where he counted Cicero asamong his disciples. His philosophic achievement was to combine thedialectic of ideas, and the doctrine of daemones (spiritual powers at workin the universe) from the Platonic tradition with the doctrines of naturallaw and of destiny from Stoicism. He thus constructed a grandiose pictureof one universe of visible and invisible in which the two distinct ordersunite to form one totality of being. The actual writings of Posidonius havealmost entirely perished, but his influence is to be traced all down thefive centuries that separate him from Nemesius. During those centuries,the loss of the works of Posidonius had been progressing, and it is veryuncertain if Nemesius had read any of Posidonius at first hand. Thenature of his debt to Posidonius is discussed passim in the notes. Scholarshave lately tended to overwork the responsibility of Posidonius for ideasfound first in later writers, but the fault is excusable.


reason causes him to project beyond the sensible or pheno-menal universe altogether, so as to have entry into the worldof intelligibles, and to converse with the unseen and eternalorder. Having thus re-echoed the Posidonian panegyric on man,Nemesius crowns it with the proof provided by the incarnationof the Word of God.

Next he descends abruptly, to the bottom rung of the ladderof being, and treats of matter, the four elements, and theirintricate combination, by way of the four humours, in theconstitution of the human body. At this point, he is ready totake up the theme of Hippocrates, the connection of man'spsychological experiences and reactions with his physical being.If the body is the soul's instrument, how are the soul's facultiesrelated to bodily structure? Here Nemesius appropriatesGalen's observations upon the localization, in the structure ofthe brain, of the cerebral sources of the faculty-activities. Themovements of impulse, intellect, and memory have theiractualization in corresponding physical processes. But inassigning to what is psychological its physical counterpart,Nemesius discovers that the soul's life is, like the universe,disposed in a series of ascending grades with, at the bottom,an unconscious and uncontrollable irrational life-urge, andat the top, the detached and rational activity of the humanspirit contemplating God and the world of intelligibles. NextNemesius observes that while pain enters life as altogetherbelonging to the world of sense, pleasure proves to point up-ward to the life of heaven, in that it changes its character as wechoose the better and reject the worse. So Nemesius reachesthe problem of man's free will, and finds that it plays but alimited part in human life, though one that is morally all-important. Here we might seem to be coming to the naturalconclusion of the book, namely, that this embodied life,illumined by the Gospel, prepares man for a redeemed andheavenly life to come. And this should have involved a dis-cussion of the resurrection-body, rounding off the theme of thenature of man. Instead, when the investigation of man'sfreedom has revealed it to be confined to moral issues, thetheme is abruptly changed. A second part of the book begins,with ch. xxxv, and concerns itself with vindicating Christianfaith in the beneficent providence of God, over particulars, aswell as over universals. Nemesius joins battle not only with thecrude fatalism of the astrologers, but with every ethnic system,showing each in turn to be but fatalism in disguise. In these


last chapters, the bishop of Emesa is seen to be feeling his wayforward. Already he sees that he must treat of the divine purposein creation, to which the work of providence is ancillary.Perhaps he saw, here, the appropriate end of his undertakingwith regard to the nature of man. But while he was still engagedin relating particular providence to human sin, the pen fellfrom his hand. As early as the second chapter,30 a reference toPlato's doctrine of the world-soul ended in a promise to returnto the question, "in the chapter on Destiny." But when thatsubject was reached, it had expanded to fill four chapters, inthe last of which the promise was but briefly redeemed.Clearly, therefore, the plan of the book developed as it wentalong. And the most obvious explanation is that his experienceas a pastor revealed to Nemesius new directions in which thework of Christian apologetic was required.

Classical scholars have been apt to speak of Nemesius as aplagiarist and as having no great weight as a thinker. Theirinterest in him is due to the fact that something can be learnedfrom him about the succession of Greek thinkers of the post-classical era. It is, however, quite out of reason to look for anacknowledged effort to break new ground in a fourth centurywriter. In that age, the unforgivable sin was to innovate(neoterizein). The man of wisdom and learning looked to servehis day and generation by giving topical rearrangement to theaccepted wisdom of antiquity. But while this was the approvedcourse for every kind of writer, it had a double advantage whenused by a Christian apologist like Nemesius. And we must giveNemesius credit for showing no small skill in so selecting pas-sages from his library of past Greek thinkers as to make themosaic which he constructs convey the message which hewants conveyed. His pagan readers can never turn on him tosay "I do not agree with you" without finding themselves inconflict with some reputable authority outside the Church.The originality of Nemesius lies first in the ethical aim whichhe set himself, in doing justice at once to the reality of soul andthe intimacy of the union of soul with body. It was perhapsthis that prepared him to see in the Christian doctrine of thedivine incarnation a profounder variant of the same theme.His second originality was to take the leap that carried himfrom the thought-world in which he had been confined intothe new thought-world of learned Christianity. After the leapof conversion, the centre of the convert's consistency lies in his

30 See Section 18, just before the last paragraph.


new faith. He no longer strives to maintain the consistency ofthe thought-world he has left behind, for he sees it no longeras a building, but as ruins. But that does not mean theabandonment of all his past studies. They become material, inas far as he finds them still sound and tenable, fit to contributeto a structure whose inspiration is new. Pisa cathedral is aparable. It is a Christian fane, expressive of nothing but thefaith and cultus to which it is now dedicated. And yet there isin it no single piece of marble that was not first quarried andsquared for the building of temples or palaces of the old pre-Christian days. So Nemesius made his treatise; in which theharshness of mosaic is somewhat mitigated, and a reasonablesmoothness of style maintained, through Nemesius more oftengiving the gist of a passage than citing it word for word. And ifwe will stand back and take a view of his essential outlines, wefind them faithfully representing the Christian outlook charac-teristic of the heyday of the Antiochene school. From theChristian side, Nemesius has incurred a suspicion of Pelagian-ism. Sapit Pelagianismum, says Bellarmine (De scriptoribus ecclesi-asticis, ad ann. 380). The ground is that, without referring tosupernatural grace, Nemesius asserts that it is in a man's powerto be good or bad as he chooses. This charge, like that of hislack of originality, arises from failure to take account of theapologetic nature of the work of Nemesius. Using, as he does,traditional Greek aretology to suggest to his readers that Chris-tianity and virtue go together, it is an unavoidable consequencethat Christian disbelief in the sufficiency of aretological ethics isobscured. On the other hand, the spirit of Nemesius is not thatof Pelagius. Neither is there any expression relating to humanfreewill in his work that cannot be paralleled in reputableGreek Christian Fathers. None of these, even John of Damascus,the standard-bearer of Greek orthodoxy, who resumes so muchof Nemesius' teaching, reaches such a conception of mysteriousgrace as was taught by Augustine. Nevertheless Nemesius, inhis last chapter, so relates our free-will to God's providence, asto exhibit a faith in God's mercy, and such humility regardingthe powers of man for good, that he must be absolved from anyreal Pelagianism of mind. When he argues of free-will, his viewis limited to the realm of nature. Against the determinists, hedemonstrates that man can by nature attain what the naturalman calls virtue. He says no word of man being able to meriteternal life. To say so much would be cold defence, if we sup-posed Nemesius to be on trial for his doctrine as a Christian

2l6 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

theologian. But as he writes as an apologist, his true defence isthat sapere Pelagianismum is something which no Christian apol-ogist can avoid, when he speaks of morality to non-Christians.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE WORK

Since the book On the nature of man left the hands of its author,its fate has been to suffer alternations of oblivion and redis-covery. The decline of the fortunes of the Antiochene school ofdoctrine after the secession of the Nestorians brought a periodof oblivion, from which the work was rescued, in the first half ofthe eighth century by a priest of Jerusalem known to history asJohn Damascene,31 whose Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faithbecame a classic of Greek Orthodoxy, commonly regarded asclosing the patristic age. John does not name Nemesius; but hisanthropological chapters (Book II. cc. 12-29) a r e fu^ of cita-tions from Nemesius. There are citations from chs. 1, 6—13,18-23, 29~33> 37> 39~44? a n d they prove that John was verymuch indebted to Nemesius for the shape and character of hisanthropology. As might be expected, the citations do not repro-duce what is most individual in Nemesius, but they are verballyclose enough for the passages to be identified. Perhaps the workOn the nature of man came to John without any author's name.But it may have come to him under the name of Gregory ofNyssa, who is one of John's favourite authors. For, about acentury later, we have some evidence, which Draseke32 explainsas showing how the attribution of the work to Nyssen cameabout. The Nestorian catholicos Timothy I, who, under Harunal Raschid, and in response to Muslim interest in the learningof the Greeks, became a notable promoter of translations fromGreek into Syriac, writes to a certain Rabban Pethion to askhim to seek for a copy of a book by "the philosopher Nemesius"on the constitution of man. Timothy gives in Syriac an incipitand explicit that define ch. 1 of the work of Nemesius. In hisexplicit occur the words in which Nemesius speaks of being about

31 i.e., of Damascus. John, who died in old age in A.D. 749, came of animportant Christian family in Damascus, where he himself held secularoffice under the Caliph. In 725 he appears, but now as a Christian priestunder John IV of Jerusalem, and a protagonist against iconoclasm. Hewas a great polemical theologian, and a number of his works survivebesides t h e Exact exposition.

32 For this citation of Timothy, and the argument based upon it, seeJ. Draseke, in £eitschrift fur wissenschaftlich Theologie, Bd. 46, Leipzig,

S? PP* 5°5~5I2> "Ein Testimonium Ignatianum"


to treat of the soul. Timothy, who evidently possessed a Greekcopy of ch. i, which he regarded as a work in itself, tells Pethionthat he has no copy of this further work, and wants him to lookfor a copy. Draseke suggests that this decapitation of the workwas due to chs. n and in having been identified with a workattributed to Nyssen, On the soul. This led, he thinks, to the title"Nemesius, bishop of Emesa, On the nature of man" being sup-posed to apply only to the contents of ch. i, while those of thenext two chapters were placed under the heading "Gregory ofNyssa, On the soul" Those who made this attribution failed tonotice, what Timothy does notice, that ch. i makes claim, forits author, to what follows. Nevertheless, we have here a veryprobable explanation of the eventual heading of entire copies ofOn the nature of man with the name of Gregory of Nyssa. Theattribution may have taken place by the time of John Damas-cene. About a century passed from the days of Timothy till thenext rediscovery of Nemesius. This was due to a monk andphysician of the monastery of the Holy Trinity in the neighbour-hood of Tiberiopolis in N. Phrygia called Meletius.33 This man,disclaiming scientific originality, compiled a Synopsis of the viewsof Church Fathers and distinguished philosophers on the constitution ofman, to which we owe citations from Soranus, the Alexandrinesurgeon and gynaecologist who practised in Rome underHadrian. Whether Meletius thought our author to be a Fatheror a philosopher, does not appear. He does not name him, butcites him verbatim to such an extent that the numerous MSS ofthe Synopsis form part of the apparatus for an edition of Nemesius.We see here a particular interest leading to a rediscovery ofNemesius, that of the Byzantine medical practitioner, who re-garded medicine as almost a branch of orthodox theology. Thisobservation helps to explain the next rediscovery, about acentury later. At this time a school of medicine had arisen, it isnot quite clear how, at Salerno, in southern Italy. In the mid-eleventh century, Nicholaus Alfanus,34 classicist, hymno-grapher, and learned in Greek, came to Salerno from Monte

33 No proper edition of the Synopsis of Meletius exists. There are a numberof MSS of which some of the best are at Oxford. In 1552, Nicolas Petraeusof Corcyra printed a Latin version of the Synopsis at Venice. In 1836,J . A. Cramer printed a text from three MSS at the Bodleian, in volumeIII of his Anecdota Graeca, under the title On the constitution of man. In thesame year Friederich Ritschl produced a good text of about the firstquarter of the work at Wratislaw. This may be the same Meletius as thea u t h o r of Aphorisms of Hippocrates.

34 Hymns of Alfanus are printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina, 147, 1219-1282.

2l8 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

Cassino to be abbot of the San Benito monastery and afterwards(1058-1085) to be archbishop there. Alfanus contributed tomedical studies a tract On the four humours. He also made anexcellent Latin rendering of Nemesius under the title Premnonphysicon ("Key to nature"). As he does not mention Nemesius'title, or his name, he perhaps worked from a copy of the Greektext with no heading at all. The work appealed to him, as hispreface shows, as a condensed doxography of medicine andtheology, such as might benefit the Latin world.

Less than a century elapsed before another Italian learned inGreek produced a Latin version of Nemesius. This was RichardBurgundio, Professor of Law in the University of Pisa. By somemeans Burgundio came to be in Constantinople in 1137, andwas sent thither again in 1172 as an envoy of the city of Pisa. Itis not clear if he brought to Pisa, in 1137, a copy of the Pandectsof Justinian (the digest of decisions in Roman law collected fromthe leading jurists by order of Justinian in the sixth century).What is clear is that a copy of the Pandects was treasured atPisa, and that Burgundio supplied Latin versions of the passagesof Greek embedded in the Latin text of the Pandects. In 1160,Burgundio made suit to the emperor Frederic Barbarossa, whowas now the stronger for the papal schism, to patronize agrandiose scheme of translations of the learned books of theGreeks, to bring the benefits of science to the emperor's sub-jects. The emperor smiled on the project, and Burgundio beganthe series with a closely literal translation of Nemesius, moreuseful as a witness to Greek readings than the more literaryLatin of Alfanus. The book was dedicated to Barbarossa andmade from a Greek MS that named Nyssen as the author. Itwas followed by several works of Galen. At that point the em-peror's support had so failed to fulfil his promise that the trans-lation scheme foundered. In 1190 the emperor was drowned,while on crusade, and Burgundio died in 1193. His version ofNemesius was known to Peter Lombard and Aquinas, whilethat of Alfanus was known to Albert the Great. In this way,much that is characteristic of the anthropology of Nemesiuspassed into the structure of scholastic theology.

The renascence brought forth two new Latin versions. Thefirst of these was the work of an Italian encyclopaedist, GeorgioValla,35 a native of Placentia, who became professor of thesciences at Venice and died there in 1499, as was remembered,55 Valla was chiefly a writer on medical subjects, and translated two other

small works of medical interest from the Greek.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

while lecturing on the immortality of the soul. His posthumousEncyclopaedia bears witness to the importance which he placedupon the work of Nemesius. He was no great Greek scholar, andthe Latin version of Nemesius which he left was, no doubt, madefor his own use. But by some means it came into the hands ofSebastian Gryphius, publisher, at Leyden, who printed it inJ533-36 The second of the two versions was made by JohnCono,37 or Konow, of Nuremberg, at the invitation of the notedhumanist Beatus Rhenanus of Basle, whither Cono, as a friar,had come to the Dominican convent. In the convent librarythere was an imperfect manuscript of Nemesius, in which thework was ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa. Burgundio's versionwas likewise made from a Greek text that ascribed the work toNyssen, and Cono used Burgundio's Latin to fill in the gapswhich comparison discovered in the defective text of the Baslemanuscript. Cono's version was published at Strassburg in 1512,and reprinted in the Basle edition of Gregory of Nyssa in 1562.Between Valla and Cono, an Italian named Domenico Pizzi-menti38 came upon a manuscript of the work of Nemesius andtranslated it into the vernacular, under the title of Operetta d'unincerto, della natura degli animati. It would seem that his Greektext, like that used by Alfanus, was without heading.

The first edition of Nemesius issued from the Plantin press atAntwerp in 1565. The editor was Nicasius Ellebodius, of Cassel,and he used but two very inferior manuscripts. He knew Valla'sversion,39 but thought so ill of it that he made one of his own,which has held its place, as companion of the Greek text, insubsequent editions and reprints. An independent text of chs. 2and 3 of the work On the nature of man was printed by GilesMorelle in his Paris edition of Nyssen, 1638, seemingly from a

36 The Netherland presses had wide contacts, and were able to obtain worksof the new learning for publication from far beyond the Low Countries.

37 Konow was born in 1463, and, as a young man impelled by love oflearning, went to Italy and acquired a knowledge of Greek. There, in1507, he became a Dominican friar, and was presently sent to the conventin Basle, where he became acquainted with many of the humanistscholars of the circle of Rhenanus; and with their publishers. A numberof his versions of Greek patristic writings were printed. He died in 1513.

38 Pizzimenti or Pizimenius translated a number of Greek classics, onebeing published in Cologne in 1574.

39 Gryphius' publication of Valla may, indeed, have paved the way.Ellebodius learned his Greek at the University of Padua whither he hadgone to study medicine. For his literary work he obtained high ecclesias-tical patronage, including that of the great Cardinal Granvella, to whomhe dedicated his edition of Nemesius. He died in 1577.

22O NEMESIUS OF EMESA

manuscript in the library of Cardinal Federico Borromeo. Itappears as an opuscule of Nyssen, entitled On the soul.

It was next the turn of England to discover Nemesius. Thediscoverer was the eccentric London poet and pamphleteer,George Wither, 1588-1667, best known to-day as author of"Shall I, wasting in despair?". After a stormy literary career,between 1611 and a journey to Holland and the Continent in1632-3, Wither shortly withdrew from London to a "rustichabitation" under Beacon Hill, Farnham, in Surrey. Hither heapparently took two of his purchases in the Low Countries, towit, Valla's translation of Nemesius printed in Leyden, and theAntwerp edition, by Ellebodius. The first work of his retirementwas to turn Valla's Latin into English. It seems unlikely that hegained much from his copy of Ellebodius, for if he had been ableto decipher Ellebodius's Greek preface, he might have laidValla aside. He could, however, read Christopher Plantin'sAddress to the Reader, which was in Latin, and so learned toidentify the author of On the nature of man with the friend ofGregory Nazianzen. The result of his labours was a stiltedEnglish version that would drive most modern readers to ask forthe Latin instead. This he dedicated to John Selden, and hadprinted by Henry Tainton, in St. Dunstan's Churchyard, in alittle duodecimo volume of 665 pages, meant, no doubt, as agentleman's Vade mecum for the profitable employment of oddmoments. It bore the date 1636, and the Imprimatur of ThomasWeekes, chaplain to the Bishop of London.

The Farnham interlude was short. Indeed, quiet was soon atan end, for Wither and England alike. In 1642, Wither soldeverything he possessed, to raise a troop of horse for Parliament,and went to garrison Farnham castle, and the rest of his quaintcareer is not relevant to our theme. What is relevant is that heapparently sold the remaining stock of his Nemesius. For, in1657, one Robert Crofts, bookseller at the Crown in ChanceryLane "under Sergeants Inne," put out a little volume called TheCharacter of Man, or His Nature exactly displayed, in a PhilosophicalDiscourse by the Learned Nemesius, now made English. It is, in fact,nothing but the remainder stock of Tainton's duodecimo, strippedof the first two leaves (containing the Dedication, Imprimatur,and Wither's name), since, at this juncture, Wither's was adubious name with which to sell a book. Croft thereforehad printed a title-page and a jejune preface "To the Reader,"and bound these into each several copy. What all this did for theknowledge of Nemesius remains obscure. But the fact is clear


that Dr. John Fell, the Restoration dean of Christchurch, who,from 1675 to his death in 1686 was also bishop of Oxford,among his many works of editing, in 1671 produced, from theSheldonian, an edition of Nemesius, with notes. The notes showthat Nemesius had been something of a discovery for Fell, andhad exercised his learning. He had discovered, also, that theBodleian possessed two manuscript copies of Nemesius, one ofwhich was under the name of Adamantion. But it was clearlynot the finding of these manuscripts that had incited him to thework, for his edition is, in fact, nothing but a hasty revision ofEllebodius, with very little added, in apparatus, from his Ox-ford texts. Gallandi reprinted Fell, in his Library of the Fathers, atVenice, in 1770.

More than a century passed before interest in Nemesiusstirred again. This time the stirring took place in Germany.Christian Friedrich Matthaei, professor at Wittemberg, havingbecome acquainted with manuscripts of Nemesius at Dresdenand Augsburg, projected a new edition. He made use of Elle-bodius, Fell, and the versions of Alfanus and Burgundio, to-gether with some five good manuscripts to which he had access.The result was his Magdeburg edition of 1802, which remainsunsuperseded to this day. In 1819, by using this edition, Dr.Osterhammer, a Bavarian physician, made a German transla-tion of the first eleven chapters, which he published at Salzburg.In 1844,40 also as a consequence of Matthaei's work, the houseof Hachette of Paris published Nemesius, De la Nature de VHomme,traduitpour la premiere fois du grec enfrancais par M, J. B. Thibault.This is a good complete version, with some notes. In 1925, Dr.Emil Orth, of Saarbrlicken, published locally an excellentGerman translation of the whole work, and of the Latin pre-faces of Alfanus and Burgundio. But in the 1880's, interest of anew kind was beginning to be taken in Nemesius. In 1887, C.Holzinger published a text of Alfanus from a manuscript un-specified. In 1888, Karl I. Burkhard, of Vienna, began a seriesof articles in Wiener Studien41 extending over twelve years,40 I n this year the editors of the Oxford Library of the Fathers advertised a

vo lume in p repa ra t ion by the Rev . E . Marsha l l , Fellow of CorpusChristi College, Cambridge, and W. A. Greenhill, M.D., to containNemesius, On the nature of man, and the Synopsis of Meletius, the latter,no doubt, from Cramer's text. The volume failed to appear.

41 Volumes x (1888), 93-135, xi (1889) I43-I52» 243-267 review the manu-script tradition. See also Volumes xv, xxvi, xxx, and finally xxxii (1910)35-9. The Burgundio edition begins in the eighteenth Jahresbericht of theKarl-Ludwig Gymnasium at Meidling.


preparing the way for a new critical edition of Nemesius. The firstarticles reviewed the considerable field of manuscripts knownto exist. Other scholars now began to take notice, and after thepublication by the Mechitarist Father J. Tasean, in 1889, fromthe San Lazzaro press at Venice, of an Armenian version ofNemesius, apparently the work of an eighth-century Armenianecclesiastic at Constantinople, and slavishly literal in its render-ing of the Greek, Emilio Teza and Almo Zanolli demonstratedits great value as a witness to the ancient Greek manuscriptfrom which the version was made.42 Meanwhile Burkhard hadbeen busy upon the Latin versions. Starting in 1891, and con-tinuing for ten years, he used the annual Programm of the Gym-nasium at Meidling to print, in instalments, an edition of Bur-gundio. He had carried an edition of Alfanus practically tocompletion, when he died in 1914. Dr. Friedrich Lammert sawthe edition through the press, and it appeared in the Teubnerseries at Leipzig in 1917. He had it in mind, also, to take upBurkhard's longer task, and bring out the new edition of theGreek.43 But not only was not the tenth-century codex on Pat-mos, the oldest known text, yet collated,44 but the whole subjecthad been complicated by the results of a study of the sources ofNemesius, now going forward. It began as far back as 1882, atBerlin, where a Greek student, Margarites Evangelides, after-wards to be professor of Ancient History at Athens, presentedfor his doctorate in philosophy a thesis entitled "Two chapters

*2 In the Proceedings of the Royal Venetian Institute of Science, Lettersand Arts, for 1892, Teza drew attention to the fact that both Tasean'sArmenian and Pizzimenti's Italian must be taken into account bythe next editor of Nemesius. (Atti del R. Istituto veneto, series iii, vol.7, pp. 1239-1279.) In the next year, he followed this up with somestudies of passages in the Armenian version, in the Proceedings of theAcademy dei Linceu (Rendiconti delta R. Accademia del Lincei, series v, vol. 2>pp. 1-16).

In 1907, Zanolli gave further studies on the light thrown by the Ar-menian upon the Greek text, in the Journal of the Italian Asiatic Society,and again in 1909. (Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana, Vol. xix, Pt. ii,pp. 1-39. Vol. xxi, pp. 84-99, 155-178.)

43 This, like the Alfanus, was to form a volume in the Teubner series. Butin 1931, Dr Lammert gave notice in Bursians Jahresbericht (265-6) thatthe publication must be some while delayed.

44 For this, see J . Sakkelion, Patmiake Bibliotheke (ca ta logue of the l ib raryof the monastery on Patmos, in Greek), Athens, 1880. Apart fromthis important Codex, the Greek libraries seem to have little to offer.Some fifteenth-century manuscripts contain single chapters, or extractsfrom Nemesius, showing that he was never wholly forgotten in theeast.


from a monograph on Nemesius and his sources."45? So began astudy of Nemesius, as himself a source of knowledge of Hellen-istic thought during the early Christian centuries. A successionof scholars have engaged in this quest, D. Bender, B. Domanski,W. W. Jaeger, H. A. Koch, H. Krause, A. Ferro, and, mostrecently, Professor E. Skard of Oslo.46 In 1941, Dr. Lammerthimself took part; in a valuable little study of the medical learn-ing of Nemesius, in Philologus.*1

There is no patristic text more overdue for re-edition thanNemesius. A better text would probably lay bare fresh points ofinterest. The work itself is an expression of the Christian spiritunique among patristic writings, as well as a source of know-ledge of non-Christian thought, and of some Christian thought,otherwise lost to us.48 It is a handicap that it lies outside theleading interests of ecclesiastical historians. And the task of pro-ducing a worthy edition is undoubtedly onerous and costly. Thegreatest hope of it being carried through is that a wider publicshall be interested in it, and here an English version, now forthe first time made from the Greek, may be of some assistancetowards creating the necessary conditions of demand.49

In any case, the work has qualities which may commend it tomany modern readers who would find other patristic authorsless congenial. It is liberal in spirit, and ready to follow scientificenquiry to its proper goal, to a degree that renders it surpris-ingly modern. It contains the fruits of a vast deal of humanthinking in a very small space. In fine, to borrow the wordswith which Dr. Orth concludes his preface, "both the workitself, and the teaching of Nemesius contained in it, repaycontinued study."45 £wei Kapitel aus einer Monographie iiber Nemesius und seine Quellen. Inaugural

Dissertation in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Kaiser Friedrich-WilhelmUniversity (Berlin 1882). Professor Evangelides retired in 1924 withouthaving ever resumed this "monograph . "

46 For these studies, see the notes to the text, passim.47 Philologus (Leipzig) xciv (1941) 125-141 . "Hel lenis t ic medic ine in Ptole-

maeus and Nemesius; a study in the history of Christian anthropology."48 E.g. of some Apollinarian and Eunomian ideas. It throws a good deal

of light on the lost Commentary on Genesis of Origen.49 A letter from Dr. Lammert at the beginning of 1954 brought the welcome

news that the new edition was substantially ready for printing, and someof it in galley-proof. All that lies between it and publication is some finalchecking and correction, for which the gallant editor has to find timefrom the leisure left to him as the head of a big city Grammar School.Meanwhile he hopes to publish, in Hermes, in a special number in cele-bration of the eightieth birthday of Professor M. Pohlenz, an expositionof ch. v of Nemesius* work

A Treatise on the Nature of Man

TEXT

[M.35. 1-38. 7]I. Of the nature of man

1. Not a few persons of standing have asserted that man is ad-mirably composed of an understanding soul and a body, and,indeed, that he could hardly exist, or be composed, otherwise.But the phrase, "understanding soul" is ambiguous. Did onething, understanding, come to another thing, the soul, andbeget understanding in it? Or did the soul, by its own nature,include understanding, as its most excellent member, so thatunderstanding is to the soul what the eye is to the body ?

Some, and these include Plotinus,1 hold that soul and mindare different entities, and make man consist of three distinctcomponents, soul, body, and mind. Apollinarius, when bishopof Laodicea,2 followed this school, and made their notion thebasis of his own opinion, building up the rest of his system uponit.3 Others, instead of thus making soul and mind different1 The greatest of the Neo-Platonists, born at Lycopolis in A.D. 205. At

Rome, 244-263, he died in Campania in 270, leaving works which hispupil Porphyry edited, arranging the matter of each section under nineheadings, from which circumstance the work of Plotinus, thus edited, isknown as the Enneads.

2 Apollinarius, born in Egypt, A.D. 315, migrated in youth, with hisfather, also named Apollinarius, to Syria, where they settled at Laodicea.He was bishop from 363 of what would claim to be the orthodox congre-gation at Laodicea, to his death in 392, though we hear of a rival inLaodicea named Pelagius. Apollinarius was certainly the outstandingfigure, as exegete and man of letters. His doctrine was condemned atRome, without mention of his name, in 376. As Apollinarianism, it wasproscribed by the first canon of the Council of Constantinople in 381.Writing in Syria about 400, Nemesius counts that his readers will knowthat Apollinarius, now dead, had been a (heretical) bishop in SyrianLaodicea.

3 The importance, for the history of doctrine, of Nemesius' three referencesto Apollinarius was noticed by J. Draseke in ^eitschriftfiir wissenschaftliche

224

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 225

entities, suppose understanding to be the guiding principle in-herent in the soul's being. Aristotle,4 in fact, holds the opinionthat a potentiality of understanding is coeval with man's con-stitution, but that we acquire actual understanding from with-out, and that, when acquired, it does not contribute anythingfresh to man's being and nature. What it does is to increaseknowledge of physical things and to advance speculation aboutthem. And that is why Aristotle credits few men, and those onlysuch as have given themselves to philosophy, with the possessionof actual understanding.5

Plato6 seems not to regard man as a twofold being of soul andbody, but as a soul that makes use of such and such a body; thishe does to set human nature in a more dignified light. From thestart he concentrates all our attention upon the divinity andpreciousness of the soul, so that, once we are persuaded toidentify ourselves with the soul, we shall give ourselves up

Theologie (Leipzig, 1886), Vol. 29, pp. 26-36. Nemesius, no doubt, hadin view the Demonstration of the divine Incarnation of Apollinarius, just asGregory of Nyssa had, where Apollinarius used the words "If then manis threefold, and the Lord is man, then is the Lord by all means threefold,of spirit, soul, and body." It is only Nemesius who sees here a followingof Plotinus. And it is typical of the unecclesiastical approach of Nemesiusthat he points out this relationship without making polemical use of it.

4 Aristotle, son of a physician named Nicomachus, of Stagira, lived from384 to 322 B.C. He was a pupil of Plato, and was later (345) appointedtutor to Prince Alexander of Macedon, afterwards Alexander the Great,in which employment he spent ten years. He then returned to Athens,to spend the rest of his life in founding what came to be known as thePeripatetic school of philosophy, because Aristotle was said to be addicted,in discussion, to pacing to and fro.

5 This passage is meant to refute, out of the mouth of Aristotle, the tricho-tomy of man taught by the Neo-Platonists. If mind were a complete andindependent entity, distinct from soul, and every man is endowed withmind, there is no assignable reason why actual understanding should beso partial and variable from man to man. But if understanding is apotentiality in the soul, which becomes actual through exercise of dis-cursive reason, mind and soul are not separable as the Neo-Platonists assert.

6 Plato, who lived from 427-347 B.C., was an Athenian aristocrat whobecame a disciple of Socrates, continuing with him until his executionin 399. Socrates held his disputations in the market place. But when hisphilosophy had been adjudged subversive, his disciples found it necessaryto withdraw from Athens. After a while, however, Plato returned, andgathered a school of philosophy in the privacy of a garden which hepossessed, called Academeia, from a shrine of Academus which it con-tained. The garden gave its name to the philosophic school which, afterthe formation of the Peripatetic school by Aristotle, maintained moreexactly the Platonic tradition, and was known as the school of theAcademics.

15—c-J-


wholly to the quest of virtue, godliness, and whatever else is forthe soul's good. Likewise, we shall not love carnal desires, sincethey are not characteristic of man as such, being primarilycharacteristic of him insofar as he is animal, and only second-arily characteristic of him as man, inasmuch as man is, butincidentally, animal.

There is, in fact, general consent that the soul deserves moreregard than the body, and that, indeed, the body is only aninstrument employed by the soul. The truth of this is proved bydeath. For, when death severs soul from body, the body liescompletely still and passive, just like a workman's tools after hehas gone away and left them lying.

COMMENTARY

I . Man consists of soul and body. Nemesius starts his argumentfrom the received opinion (doxa) that the nature of man is com-posite of soul and body. Stated in this general form, he does notexpect the opinion to be controverted. But he proceeds to re-view the three ways in which this opinion finds particular ex-pression in Plotinus, Aristotle and Plato. It was characteristicof the Greek approach to knowledge, in the early Christiancenturies, to start from the opinions of famous thinkers on asubject under discussion, and reach a conclusion by analysisand criticism of the rival opinions. Thus there arose a particulartype of literary composition known as a doxography, an ar-ranged compilation of such opinions, to serve as the basis forfurther discussion. Such works were plentiful, and it need havecost Nemesius little labour to make his summary statement ofthe opinions of the three philosophers on the constitution ofman. But at once it transpires that the interest of Nemesius inthe discussion is connected with a controversy in Christiandoctrine. As a representative of the school of Antioch, Nemesiusholds that, in the incarnation, the Son of God took man's natureperfect and complete, and that, had there been any componentof that nature which he did not take, that component would re-main, in man, unredeemed. Antiochenes were therefore verycritical of Apollinarius, and his trichotomy of man, as body,soul, and mind, upon which he based a Christology accordingto which the divine Word took human flesh and soul, but was,in his divine being, in place of mind, relatively to them. For, onthe Antiochene canon, man's mind would, on such a supposi-tion, remain unredeemed. Nemesius claims that Apollinarius


took his trichotomy from the Neo-Platonist school of phil-osophy, of which Ammonius Saccas, in the early third centuryof our era, is generally accounted the founder, although theprinciples of the school were developing in the philosophicsyncretism of the preceding three centuries. W. W. Jaeger,Nemesios von Emesa (Berlin, 1914) p. 5, Note 2, notes passages inthe Enneads of the Neo-Platonist Plotinus as justifying Nemesius'association of Apollinarius with the Neo-Platonists. ThereforeNemesius rejects the opinion of Plotinus on the subject underdiscussion, since the philosophy upon which a Christian heresycan entrench itself must be false. But he accepts the opinions ofboth Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle made the study of the actualthe road to a knowledge of universal principles, and so de-veloped a scientific method for the extension of knowledge. Thepredominant interest of Plato was in the soul as conversant withthe world of ideas. Regarding the actual as in some way derivedfrom the ideal, Plato tended to give it too fleeting attention, sothat Aristotle was driven to redress the balance by an oppositeemphasis. The Neo-Platonists exaggerated the tendency ofPlatonism, until they made the actual almost irrelevant to trueknowledge. It was characteristic of the Greek culture of Syria atthe end of the fourth century to be divided between admirationof the idealism of Plato and attachment to Aristotelian method.In this Nemesius was typical of his time and country, as he is inthe coolness with which he treats Neo-Platonism. As Platonist,he believes man to be more than the physical organism thatappears, and, as Aristotelian he asserts that that organism istruly constitutive of his nature. How both things can be true,and what their simultaneous truth means for morality, andthe Christian hope, is the theme and problem of the wholework.

It is significant of the nature and purpose of the work ofNemesius On the nature of man that while Apollinarius is intro-duced as a modern Christian thinker associated with the Neo-Platonists, the question of Christology is kept in the back-ground. This would be absurd in a book of doctrine meant to beread only by Christians. The work must be intended as Chris-tian apologetic, addressed to the moderately cultured public,outside the Church, that had, nevertheless, some knowledge ofthe character of Christianity, and of the contents of Scripture.It must be addressed, in short, to just such persons as Nemesiushad been himself, a few years earlier.


TEXT[M.38. 7-40. 10]

2. It is well known that man has some things in commonwith the inanimate creatures, and shares life with the plant andanimal creation, while partaking intelligence in common withall beings endowed with reason. With inanimate things heshares a material body mingled of the four elements.1 Withplants he shares not only this but also the faculties of self-nutriment and generation. With irrational animals he sharesall these things, and, in addition, a range of voluntary move-ments, together with the faculties of appetite, anger, feeling andrespiration.2 All these things man and the irrational animalshave in common, if not everywhere on equal terms. Finally, bybeing rational, man shares with the incorporeal rational in-telligences3 the prerogative of applying, to whatever he will,

1 The four elements of the material universe, as the ancients enumeratedthem, were earth, water, air, and fire. By earth they understood the basicsolid, of which actual earth is typical. They recognized that this elementis never encountered in nature as pure solid and nothing but pure solid.Always it is either porous, or moist, or warm, or otherwise mingled witha portion of one or more of the other elements. In fact, they acknowledged,no element occurs in a pure state. The element fire was considered to haveheat as its first attribute, and incandescence only as a secondary attribute.Thus it was thought to be even more mobile and pervasive than air.Every object filling space must, it was believed, be composed of the fourelements mingled together in some particular proportion. So man's bodymust be mingled of the four elements, and suffer destruction from thedeficiency of any. The immediate arbiter of health, however, was heldto be the proportion in which four fluids or juices were mingled in thebody, namely blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. The last twowere also known respectively as spleen (or choler), and bile, while thefour together were called the four humours. The humours, like the restof the body, were believed to contain the four elements. And the exactproportions in which the humours occurred were thought to have animportant bearing on health and disposition, and in any individual weresaid to constitute his "temperament." Thus temperament, in the firstinstance meaning the adjustment of the humours in any person's system,came to have its chief present meaning, the physical and natural characteror disposition peculiar to the particular person. Thus the elements,things which man shares with the inanimate creation, prove to affectthe highest ranges of his being, in the argument of Nemesius.

2 The justification for classing these activities as voluntary appears laterin the book.

3 The ancients assumed, as needing no proof, the existence of many kindsof incorporeal beings endowed with reason and free-will. Jews and Christ-ians thought principally of good angels and evil demons. But the Greeksthought of many kinds of principalities and powers, semi-divine creatures,


reason, understanding, and judgement. So he pursues virtues,and follows after godliness, in which the quest of every severalvirtue finds its goal.4

It follows from these considerations that man's being is on theboundary between the intelligible order and the phenomenalorder. As touching his body and its faculties, he is on a par withthe irrational animate, and with the inanimate, creatures. Astouching his rational faculties he claims kinship, as we said,with incorporeal beings.5 It would seem that the Creator linkedup each several order of creation with the next, so as to makethe whole universe one and akin.

We may see herein the best proof that the whole universe isthe creation of one God.6 For not only has he united all par-ticular things in making them members of one order of reality,but he has made them fit together, each to each. Consider, forexample, how, in every animate creature the Creator joinedinsensible parts, such as bone, fat, or hair, with sentient tissues,like the masses of flesh, and fleshy organs, to make, out of the

to whom departments of nature were assigned for government. No par-ticular moral character is implicit in this conception. But, as it came tobe accepted into Christian thought, and owing to the doctrine of the Fall,the "world-rulers" were assimilated to the demons. Without being im-plicated in the material universe by having bodies of their own, all thesebeings were believed able to affect the material order. By their ownnature they were held to belong to an invisible universe, called theintelligible world, because the mind can conceive and know it, thoughit is unknown to the senses.

4 The intelligible world was held to be more immediate to God than thematerial (or phenomenal or physical) world. Therefore Nemesius sees,in man's capacity for the pursuit of godliness, the proof that man, thoughvisibly a denizen of this world, is already beginning to be enfranchisedin the world of spirits.

5 It was a fundamental conviction with the Greeks that logos, the facultyof ordered reason which finds its proper instrument in articulate speech,is the thing that distinguishes man from the animals. They were awareof what can be called intelligence in animals. But they explained it away,as instinct, and attributed to man, alone of embodied creatures, trueintelligence, a quality supposed characteristic of spiritual beings.

6 Nemesius has here taken the Stoic argument that the binding of theworld together in unity proves the existence of a single world soul, andhas used it for the overthrow of polytheism. By the time of Nemesius,this was good apologetic. There was widespread readiness in non-Christian society, now, to postulate one divine principle over the wholeuniverse, to which principle the gods of polytheism were in some waysubordinate. This opened the apologist's way for the doctrine of thecreation of the world by one Creator, which Nemesius now drives homewith his rehandling of the Stoic argument. Compare Origen's argumentfor "the one Author of one effect," in Against Celsus, i. 23.


insensible and sensitive parts, one composite living thing.7 Seehow he has demonstrated such a creature to be not merely acomposite whole but an individual unity!8 Or consider, again,how he made all the different kinds of things in the rest ofcreation to fit each to the next, by the introduction of somesmall difference into a general agreement.

COMMENTARY

2. In man's nature two worlds meet. Nemesius has rejected theNeo-Platonic trichotomy because it makes a discontinuity be-tween man's higher faculties of mind, and his lower powers ofsoul and body. He now turns to the physical universe to find theprinciple of continuity binding higher to lower in a series ofascending grades of being, from the inanimate up throughplants to animals and so to man, and to that which is above andbeyond man, the intelligible universe. At each step the higherhas roots in the lower, which in turn is united to that below itin like fashion. So, as man's nature is rooted in the orders of thephysical universe beneath him, the intelligible orders of beingare rooted in the physical order by means of man's highestfaculties of mind and soul. Thus, in as far as the phenomenaland intelligible worlds are distinct, man marks the boundary,and constitutes a link, between them.

We have here two independent ideas expressly connected.The first is concerned with the physical universe and its unityarising from the fact that, in its ascending orders of being, thehigher always shares in the attributes of the lower. The secondis concerned with the nature of man, which is composite becausehe is a link between two worlds. It is certain that neither ideais original with Nemesius. And it has been conjectured thatwhatever the immediate source from which he drew the sub-7 See Jaeger, op. cit., p. 103, for the Posidonian character of this observation.8 Nemesius again goes to the Stoics for an apologetic argument. The Stoic

principle of the correspondence of man with nature, pursued with a moralaim, led to the observation of such parallels between man and the universeas that man's body, in the manner in which it is knit into unity, reflectsthe unity prevailing in the physical world. As Reinhardt points out,Nemesius, in his Christian-Platonic rehandling of Stoic themes, takesliberties that would have been intolerable to an orthodox Stoic, such asdescribing human flesh as, in itself, inanimate. Such behaviour isexplained by the fact that long-continued syncretism had confused theboundaries of the classical systems of philosophy in the minds of thereading public. The Christian apologist had the less need to be guardedin his arguments.


stance of this section, his ultimate debt is to a philosopher whoflourished about a century B.C., the Syrian Posidonius ofApamea. Though the works of Posidonius have not survived, heexerted an immense influence. He was trained under Panaetiusin the Stoic school of philosophy, and, travelling widely, spreadinterest in Stoicism in the Roman world. He was a teacher ofCicero, who is a principal source of our knowledge of his par-ticular version of the Stoic doctrine of the linked unity of allorders in the material universe, a version which owed much tothe Timaeus of Plato. Posidonius explained the world-process ascarried on by a system of energies or faculties (dynameis) eachwith its appropriate function, thus finding a parallel betweenthe universe and the human body. The relation of Nemesius toPosidonius, in this respect, is discussed by Dr. K. Reinhardt, inPauly-Wissowa, xxii. i, in Section 9 of the article, Poseidoniosvon Apamea. Here the point is made that the two ideas, of theascending orders in the universe, and man as the link betweentwo worlds, are nowhere found united elsewhere, as they are inthis section of Nemesius. They are found separately in a numberof writers, and in Nyssen, On the making of man, ch. 8, they occurin the same writer, but unconnected. Yet, Reinhardt argues, asseen in Nemesius they fit together to such good purpose that itis unlikely that they had never been united previously. In brief,he thinks that Posidonius crowned his doctrine of man as crownof the universe, by making him join the universe with the gods.But if it is thus the doctrine of Posidonius that Nemesius repro-duces, he reproduces it Platonized and Christianized. The Stoicmonism of Posidonius included heaven and the gods in thecategories of space and matter, but Nemesius conceives of twoworlds, to one of which these categories are inapplicable, inaccordance with Platonic dualism. It is unlikely that Nemesiusworked directly upon Posidonius, or that his hands thus trans-formed the Posidonian theme. Origen is the man, and his lostCommentary on Genesis is the work, that probably brought toNemesius the Posidonian theme in the Platonized and Chris-tianized form in which he reproduces it. There are, as we shallsee, other traces in Nemesius of the influence of this com-mentary; while it is in connection with Genesis that a Christianwriter might find Posidonius specially interesting. That Neme-sius does not acknowledge use of the commentary is the lesssurprising since the name of Origen had begun to be under acloud. There are, however, passages in Nemesius of an evidentPosidonian derivation that have undergone no Platonization, so


that Origen's commentary cannot have been the only inter-mediary through which Nemesius acquired the thoughts ofPosidonius. It is Posidonius who, by whatever intermediaries,has provided Nemesius with the means of setting, in this secondsection, the nature of man against the widest and most stimulat-ing background. If two worlds are found conjoined in man, nowonder if body and soul form a unity in him. (See E. Skard,Nemesios-studien, i, in Symbolae Osloenses, Fasc. xv. pp. 23-43.(Oslo, 1936), and W. W. Jaeger, op. cit. Pt. II, ch. 2 "Syn-desmos".)

TEXT

[M.40. 10-44. *•]3. There is no so marked difference between inanimate

things and plants, but for the self-nutrient faculty of the latter.Likewise plants are not so different from irrational, but sentient,animals, nor are these, in turn, in total contrast with therational creatures. One order is not unrelated to another, nor dothey lack palpable and natural bonds of union. For example,while some inherent power1 makes one kind of stone differ fromanother, the lodestone2 seems to stand out, in comparison withother stones, by its celebrated power of first attracting, andthen holding, iron to itself, as if it would feed upon it. Moreextraordinary still, when it has gripped one piece of iron, and byimparting to every such piece held by it, its own power ofattraction, it uses that piece to get hold of another. In fact, iron,after it has been in contact with lodestone, attracts iron.

Again, when the Creator passed in turn from the creation of

1 The four-element theory left the differences between minerals unexplained.What makes one mineral harder, heavier, or brighter than another?Posidonius sought to answer this question by postulating particularpowers or virtues (dynameis) in things which account both for their actualqualities and for the change or permanence of their relations with otherthings. The aim of Posidonius was to describe and explain the universeas a living and moving, not as a static, structure.

2 Nemesius means that the "powers" of the lodestone resemble, and inthat sense "predict," the self-nutrient faculty of plants as it becomesmanifest in the next, or vegetable, stage of creation. The ancients werefascinated by the qualities of the magnet, so called because the oxide ofiron still known as magnetite was known to them as a product of Magnesiain Thrace. Magnetite was often found in polarized pieces which producedthe phenomena that Nemesius describes. Such stones were called by theGreeks Magnesian stones, and from the Greek word is derived our wordmagnet. On the other hand, the English word lodestone is simply "thestone that leads or draws."


plants to that of animals, we may suppose that he did not, so tosay, leap from the one order to the next, and suddenly makecreatures endowed with the powers of locomotion and sensa-tion. Rather, he advanced towards this end by slow degrees andseemly moderation.3 He framed the marine animals calledpinna and sea-nettle4 to have all the appearance of sensitiveplants. Like plants he fixed them to the bed of the sea as if withroots. He surrounded them with shells as trees grow bark,rendering them stationary like plants. Nevertheless, he im-planted in them the sense common to the whole animal crea-tion, the sense of touch. They are thus like plants in beingrooted and stationary, and like animals in their possession offeeling or perception. Aristotle observed that sponges, in likemanner, though they grow on the rocks, close and open, or,rather, spread themselves out, as in self-defence, when they per-ceive anything approaching. For this reason the scientists ofancient days used to call them, and all such creatures, Zoo-phytes.5 After the pinna and such like creatures, God made nextthe animals with but a very limited range of movement, yet

3 Nemesius sees two virtues in the gradualness of evolution. The first isthat which Posidonius also saw in it, that it establishes a continuity inthe phenomenal universe which, in turn, makes it a unity. The secondhe owes to the biblical doctrine of creation. It invests creation with anunhasting deliberation that beseems God.

4 At this point Nemesius is drawing upon Aristotle's Historia animalium orStory of the animal Kingdom. The Mediterranean pinna is a bivalve molluscin a horn-shaped shell which anchors itself to the sea-bed by a byssusof silky strands. Sea-nettles are usually floating jelly-fish. But Aristotleseems to include sea-anemones under Acalephae (sea-nettles). Even sea-anemones, though rooted to the sea-bed, have no "bark," however.Dr. H. B. Cott suggests the possibility that Nemesius (or rather his source)recognized the coral polyp as among Acalephae. The coral polyp onlydiffers from a tiny sea-anemone by the fact that it develops a limyskeleton about it, secreted through its skin. The ancients prized red coralvery highly, and they are likely to have observed the polyp, small thoughit is.

5 Zoophyte means part-animal, part-plant. The question is, what Nemesiusmeans by "the scientists of ancient days." The classical writers do notuse the term zoophyte; which does not, in fact, appear before the secondcentury, A.D. Apart from the statement about the ancients, this passageabout the zoophytes is word for word identical with one in Galen, Theagreement between Hippocrates and Plato (hereafter cited as the Agreement),where he is citing a work of Posidonius, On the passions. (See W. W.Jaeger, op. cit., p. 104, Note 2, and p. 116.) It is possible that Nemesiuscopied the passage from some collection of passages which misled himinto thinking that the word zoophyte had been coined by the classicalnaturalists.


able to move themselves from one place to another. Such aremost of the shell-fish, and earthworms. Next he endowed par-ticular species with more of this or that faculty, such as sentienceor locomotion, until he reached the highest types of animal. Bythat, I mean those animals which possess all the senses, and arecapable of unrestricted movement. And when God passed fromthe irrational animals to create a rational living creature, man,he did not introduce this rational creature abruptly, but led upto it, by the development, in certain animals, of instinctive in-telligence, of devices and clever tricks for self-preservation,which make them appear almost rational. Only after them didGod bring forth man, the truly rational living creature. Youmay observe the same progression if you investigate the par-ticular vocal sounds that living things emit. Beginning with thesimple and monotonous noises made, for example, by horsesand cows, the Creator advanced gradually to the varied andremarkably inflected utterance of daws or talking-birds,6 andonly left off when he reached man's articulate and perfectspeech.

Again, he attached articulate speech to thought and reason-ing, so that it should communicate what was going on in themind. Thus God, everywhere fitting one thing to anotherharmoniously,7 bound them all together, uniting in one bondthings intelligible and things phenomenal, by means of hiscreation of man.

COMMENTARY

3. The visible creation was made a unity by gradual evolution.Nemesius now retraces in more detail the ground traversed inSection 2. He shows how, rising through the mineral, vegetable,and animal kingdoms in succession, the principle of gradualdifferentiation both divides those kingdoms into distinguishablekinds, and, at the boundary between two kingdoms, is manifestin creatures which possess characteristics of either kingdom.Nemesius treats his theme teleologically. The facts which hedescribed are, in his eyes, a demonstration of the Creator's willand indication of his nature. But the scientific material whichhe uses for this purpose was not collected by him, nor with a6 Presumably "talking-birds" means parrots.7 Nemesius is here comparing the order observable in nature with musical

harmony. Certain notes, high and low, have the quality that enablesthem to be combined in a harmonious chord. So, if we compare theevolutionary scale to a musical scale we can liken the unity perceived innature to a harmonious musical chord.


view to the use which he makes of it. The interest which in-spired its collection was philosophic, and concerned with theunity of the natural order. This interest was Stoic, and notPlatonic. It follows that it was not through Origen's Commentaryon Genesis that the matter of this section came to Nemesius. Itcame, as Professor E. Skard has demonstrated, [SymbolaeOsloenses. Fasc. xvn, pp. 18-23, Oslo, 1937) through the mediumof the physician Galen. The original source was Posidonius,less altered in Galen than in Origen. In fact, if this section werepurged of its references to creation, and if the word "Nature"were put wherever God is named, it might have come fromPosidonius' hand.

TEXT[M.44. 1-45. 17.]

4. The foregoing considerations justify the Mosaic story ofcreation when it makes man the last to be created.1 For, notonly was it logical that, if all other creatures were made for hissake, they should be provided in advance for him to use, andthat, then, he, the intended user, should be created only whenall was ready, but there was another reason besides. Godcreated both an intelligible and a phenomenal order, and re-quired some one creature to link these two together, in suchwise that the entire universe should form one agreeable unity,unbroken by internal incoherences.2 For this reason, then, manwas made a living creature such as should combine together the1 Philo, the Jewish exegete and philosopher who flourished at Alexandria

about the time of Christ's birth, commenting upon Genesis 1:26, in hiswork On the creation of the world, posed the question why man was the lastto be created. There are several passages in Nemesius that recall parts ofthis work. The reason, no doubt, is that Origen's Commentary on Genesis,which Nemesius acknowledges to be known to him, served as intermediarybetween Nemesius and the thoughts of Philo. It has been observed thatthe signs of the influence of Philo upon Origen appear most when hissubject is cosmology and the associated themes that would most naturallyenter into a Commentary on Genesis, and so reach Nemesius. The middlepart of the present section of Nemesius rings of Origen, while we maycompare the later part with this passage in Origen's Third Homily onJeremiah: "But the righteous man is not earth. For though he is on earth,he has his citizenship in heaven: wherefore he will not hear, Earth thouart, and the rest; but it may be very likely this, Heaven thou art, andinto heaven shalt thou go, for thou bearest the image of the heavenly."In short, it is to Origen that Nemesius owes his elaboration of the destinyof man in this Section.

2 The Posidonian thought that man, by his existence, turned the dualityof the intelligible and phenomenal worlds into an organic unity isChristianized by Nemesius, and the school of Antioch, in the form that


intelligible and phenomenal natures. So then, to put greatmatter in few words, we see how wonderful is the wisdom of ourCreator.

In being so constituted, man finds himself on the border thatseparates rational from irrational. If he leans towards thethings of the body,3 and finds his satisfaction in carnal pleasures,he thereby makes his choice to live like the irrational animals.So he should be accounted one of them, and be called, inPaul's words, "a man of earth," to whom is said, "Dust thouart, and unto dust thou shalt return,"4 and "He shall be com-pared unto the beasts that have no understanding, and islikened unto them."5 If, on the other hand, man advances inthe direction of reason, despises all carnal pleasures, and pur-sues the divinely favoured life that is specifically man's, he willthen deserve to be called a "heavenly man," in accordance withthe Apostle's words, "Such as is the earthy, such also are theythat are earthy, and such as is the heavenly, such also are theythat are heavenly."6

The chief characteristic of the nature that is ruled by reasonis to avoid and avert evils, and to search out and choose thegood. One sort of good applies alike to soul and body, such asvirtues, which have their reference indeed to the soul, but to thesoul in so far as it makes use of body. Another sort of goodconcerns the soul only, in its own proper functions, withoutinvolving the body, such as godliness or philosophic contempla-tion.7 Wherefore, those who choose to live as men indeed, and

Christ, by his existence and work, achieves this. The thought lived on inthe more philosophic of western Christian thinkers, and English church-men encounter it in J. M. NeaPs version of the Eastertide hymn of Fulbertof Chartres, where Christ "joining heaven and earth again, links in onecommon-weal the twain."

3 This does not mean the same thing as yielding to motions that originatein the body. Gen. 6:2 and "the sons of God" who "saw the daughters ofmen that they were fair," formed a foundation for the belief thatincorporeal rational beings could, mentally, "lean towards the things ofthe body." It transpires that Nemesius credits man with a power of choicethat consists exactly in contemplating and finding satisfaction in which-ever of the two worlds he will, the phenomenal world in which he inheresprimarily through his body, and the intelligible world to which he hasentry as a rational soul. Origen uses this phrase "leaning towards thethings of the body" in his surviving First Homily on Genesis.

4 Gen. 3:19. 5 Ps. 49:20 (Septuagint). $ I Cor. 15:48.7 The ascetic movement enjoyed a prestige which extended beyond the

membership of the Church, and brought it about that what Nemesiushere said would be readily understood, viz. that there may be spiritualgains that can only be obtained at the expense of the body.


not just to live that life which is at animal level, pursue virtueand godliness.

What the difference is, between the pursuit of godliness andthe pursuit of virtues, shall be discussed. But we must first givean account of the relationship between the soul and the body.For, until we have discovered what, in its essence, the soul is,we are not in a position to go on and treat of its activities.

COMMENTARY

4. Man was created to be the link between two worlds. Nemesiushas, so far, been interpreting Posidonian evolution in a tele-ological sense. So interpreted, evolution seeks its aim or end,and its final product must be that for which it was put in mo-tion. Nemesius now claims, on the authority of Genesis, thatman is the final creature. The whole gradual process by whichthe phenomenal world has been evolved was directed towardsthe production of man, in whom the phenomenal world isjoined to the intelligible. Man is thus in a position of cosmic re-sponsibility, only to be fulfilled by his retaining unimpaired hishold upon the intelligible. The section ends with an examina-tion of the means to this end.

There is nothing, however, in the section more significantthan what the author abstains from saying. For Nemesiuscertainly believed that, however it might be that God hadcreated mankind to bind visible and invisible together, mankindwas fallen in Adam. It had sunk to the level of the beasts thatperish. It had no longer such hold upon the intelligible world asto be the link that God destined it for. The argument ofNemesius thus requires, for its completion, the gospel that thereis, nevertheless, a link that holds, in the incarnate Son of God,the sinless and perfect Man. The completion of the argument isamply present in the works of the greatest theologian of theSchool of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Writing a quarterof a century after Nemesius, Theodore teaches that man is a"pledge of friendship" between the members of a divided uni-verse. The word "pledge" indicates that the fulfilment of thereconciliation is yet to come. But the pledge would have no sub-stance if the link were not made secure in Christ. Christ's deathand resurrection were, for Theodore, specific acts that re-linked the phenomenal world with the intelligible. At the sametime he saw them as redemptive of the race created for the pur-pose which he alone had yet fulfilled. For by them there comes,


for believers in them, reconciliation with reason and with God.Nevertheless, man is not restored, here and now, to the officefor which God destined him. That will only be fulfilled, asTheodore says, "in the next world, after the resurrection . . .after we have become truly immutable and worthy to be alwayswith Christ." For the present, he had said earlier, "it is neces-sary that this decrepit and mortal world should go on existingfor some time further, in order that mankind might believe inChrist." (Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the JVicene creed, editedand translated from the Syriac by A. Mingana, 1932, Wood-brooke Studies, v., p. 115 and p. 70). Such was equally theprivate mind also of Nemesius, upon man as the link betweentwo worlds. And his reticence proves that he is writing for thosewho have not yet entered into the Gospel.

TEXT

[M.45. 17-48.4.]5. The Jews1 say that man was created at first neither

avowedly mortal nor yet immortal, but rather in a state poisedbetween the two, in the sense that, if he gave himself up to hisbodily passions, he should be subject to all the changes of thebody, but that if he put the good of his soul foremost, he shouldbe deemed worthy of immortality. For if God had made manmortal from the first, he would not have appointed dying as thepenalty of his offence, seeing that no one would condemn tomortality someone who was already mortal. If, to take theother case, God had made man immortal, he would not havesubjected him to the need of nourishment. No immortal being1 This is the formula with which Origen commonly introduces his borrowings

from Philo, and Nemesius has taken it straight from the text before him.The passage in Philo which Origen had in mind may be that towardsthe close of his work On the creation of the world where he says, "One mightproperly say that man is the boundary-mark between a mortal and animmortal nature, and shares in each just so much as he must." AsProfessor Skard points out (Nemesiosstudien 1, p. 30) Philo is here com-menting on Gen. 2:7, and the passage of Origen's commentary before theeyes of Nemesius was, no doubt, his exposition of the same verse. Thetext of Philo continues that man is mortal as touching his body and im-mortal as touching his mind. But if Origen reproduced this piece ofextreme Platonism, Nemesius has not followed suit. It is interesting thatthe line he follows instead is that taken by Theophilus, bishop of Antiochat the end of the second century (To Autolycus, i. 27). We may assume,therefore, that Theophilus represents the doctrinal tradition of the SyrianChurch, in handling this question.


is dependent upon bodily food.2 We cannot suppose, either,that God created man immortal and then so lightly changedhis mind and made him mortal. He did not, evidently, do anysuch thing to the angels that sinned. They remained immortal,according to their original nature. They look for judgementupon their offences, but in a form other than death. We hadbetter, therefore, accept this account of the matter,3 or elsesuppose man to have been created mortal, but capable of be-coming immortal when brought to perfection by moral pro-gress;4 which is the same thing as being potentially immortal.

Until man had attained his perfection, however, it was not atall suitable for him to know how he was constituted. God, forthat reason, forbad him to taste the fruit of the Tree of Know-ledge. In those days plants possessed singular powers. Rather,we might say, they do so still. Then, however, in the beginningof creation, virtues of plants had suffered no deterioration, andso were correspondingly powerful.5 Thus the mere eating of acertain fruit was then capable of imparting an understanding ofone's own nature. But God would not have man attain suchknowledge prematurely. For, if man knew the whole extent ofhis physical indigence, it would draw all his concern towardsthe care of his body, and leave him none to spare for his soul.And that is why God forbad man to eat the fruit that gives suchknowledge.

Man disobeyed and learned the truth about himself. But, inso doing, he sacrificed his own advance towards perfection, andbecame the slave of bodily needs. Straightway, he set out on thesearch for something wherewith to clothe himself. Moses saysthat the man was naked, and now knew it, whereas, until that

2 That angels have no wants is a theme of Origen.3 The phrase appears to refer to the whole preceding argument, and not

just to the Jewish theory with which it opens, thus indicating thatNemesius has a commentary before him, and finds the conclusions whichit reaches acceptable.

4 That perfection may be reached by moral progress is a characteristictheme of Origen.

5 See Cyril, Lecture 11. 4 above. It was a Posidonian doctrine that naturewas once fresher and more dynamic than now. Origen may have com-bined this conception with Gen. 3:17 (the curse upon the earth that wasuttered as part of man's punishment), and so explained the presumeddecline in quality. Thus the truth of Scripture might seem to be confirmedand enhanced by the teaching of Posidonius. Jewish and Christianwriters explained the power of pagan thinkers to enhance revelationeither as due to partial inspirations, or to unacknowledged deductionsfrom the revelation in Scripture.


moment, God had caused him to be entranced with existenceand happily unconscious of himself. When man lapsed from theway of perfection, he likewise lost the immortality which, byfavour of his Creator, he is to recover at the last.

After his fall, God gave him permission to feed on flesh,whereas, before his fall, God had assigned to him a sufficientdiet wholly provided by things that grew from the soil. This, ofcourse, was in paradise. But now that he despaired of perfection,man was, thereafter and in condescension, allowed to feed him-self as he chose.6

COMMENTARY

5. Man is incapacitated, by Adam's fall, for being the link. Neme-sius has spoken, in Section 4, as if man was capable of fulfillinghis office of link between the phenomenal and intelligibleworlds. He now proceeds to show, with the help of Genesis, howman came to be incapacitated for his office. Once more he isevidently drawing upon Origen's Commentary on Genesis. For thissection, see E. Skard, Nemesiosstudien 1. pp. 27-31,

TEXT

[M48. 4-52. 12.]6. As man is corporeal and the body is composed of the four

elements, it follows that he is liable to all contingencies to whichthose elements are liable, namely scission, mutation, and flux,three things affecting the body only. By mutation we meanchange of qualities,1 and by flux the evacuation of constituents.For, a living creature keeps passing off matter, through thevisible orifices, and through others that are concealed, as well.These we shall consider later. Whatever is evacuated must, ofcourse, be fully replaced, or the living organism would perishfrom the deficiency of replacements. Dry matter evacuated by aliving creature must, of necessity, be replaced by dry food,6 Nemesius is almost certainly parting company with Origen at this point.

Origen supposed men to have begun to sacrifice and eat flesh after theFlood. The theory which Nemesius substitutes, that meat-eating came ofman's desperation after his fall, may be associated with the belief,prevalent in Christian Syria, that a man of God abstains from flesh.A somewhat similar idea about the origin of meat-eating appears in theClementine Homilies, of third-century Syrian provenance. The Didache,which is probably a Syrian composition of the second century, teachesabstinence from flesh-meat as a counsel of Christian perfection (ch. 6).

1 Mutation means change of quality, flux changes bulk, and scission altersshape.


moisture by wet food, and exhalations by corresponding in-halations. Our food and drink are made up of just those ele-ments2 of which our bodies are composed. So, each livingcreature is nourished by taking in what accords with, and re-sembles, its constitution, and is cured by taking in their oppo-sites.3 Some elements we take into the body just as they are, andothers by the means of some vehicle. Thus, to gain moisture,either we drink plain water, or we imbibe it contained in wine,oil, or any of the kinds of fruit that we denominate moist. Wineis nothing other than water produced in the vine.

In like manner, we take in the element fire, it may be directly,by warming ourselves at it, or it may be by means of hot meatsor beverages. In fact, there is a modicum of fire diffused throughall comestibles, in greater or less degree. In like manner, again,we either breathe in air, directly, from the surrounding atmo-sphere, or we extract it from the various other things that weconsume in eating or drinking. Earth, on the other hand, wenever consume just as it is, but only as a constituent in this orthat food. Thus, earth becomes wheat, and we eat the wheat.Larks, pigeons frequently, and partridges feed on earth,4 but

2 The four elements are present in the body in a particular proportionand quantity, which, through the balance of the humours, determineslife and health. The same four elements are present, in particular pro-portions, in different kinds of food. So food sustains life and health byreplacing wastage of elements in the body.

3 In the end of a sentence, Nemesius introduces the new subject of physic,or cure. The theory of health which Nemesius takes from Galen, and theGreek medical tradition, makes health consist in maintaining an idealbalance of qualities which constitutes the "temperament" of the subject.Feeding is simple, by comparison, for it only aims to make wastage good.But health is most often overthrown not by a deficiency but by an excess.As there is no means of getting rid of an excess of some constituent ofthe body, the physician's art is to produce in the body the quality theexact opposite of that of the thing that is in excess, and to produce itin exactly the right amount. Thus the balance of temperament will berestored. Nemesius illustrates the point by the case of a fever-patient.A fiery quality is in excess, with such a patient. It is no cure, however,to place the patient in the cold. Cure comes by the administration of theright food and medicine, which will introduce the required solid and coolqualities into the body itself, and so restore the balance of temperament.Thus the art of the physician is to discover the diet and medicine that willrestore the temperament of the patient.

4 The ancients supposed birds to be feeding on earth when they wereactually devouring ants or grubs hidden in the soil. That this is theexplanation, and not that birds pick up grits for their crops, is clear fromthe fact that named species of birds are here credited with eating earth,such as partridges, which are inveterate eaters of ants, or larks which16—c.j.


man consumes earth only as a constituent of seeds, fruits, orflesh.

Alike for dignity,5 and for the greater delicacy of his sense oftouch (wherein man excels all other animals) God wrapped usneither in thick hide, like oxen and other leathery-coatedbeasts, nor in a long hairy covering, like goats, sheep, or hares,nor in scales, like snakes or fishes, nor in hard shells, like tor-toises or oysters, nor in soft shell, like lobsters, nor in feathers,like birds. Perforce, therefore, we need clothes, to take the place,for us, of the covering with which Nature endowed the otheranimals.

These, then, are the reasons why we stand in need of food andclothes. And for the very same reasons, we need houses, not theleast function of which is to afford us a refuge from the wildbeasts. Further, because of disordered mingling of qualities, andof broken continuity, in the body, we require physicians andtheir art. When change takes place in some quality, we need torestore the balance by introducing the opposite quality, so as tobring the constitution of the body back to normal. The phy-sician's art is not, as some think, just to cool a fevered body, butto restore it to an equable temperament. For were one merely tocool a man in a fever, his condition would turn into the exactlyopposite ailment.

So, therefore, man has need of food and drink, because ofevacuation and perspiration; of clothes, because Nature pro-vided him with no stout envelope; of a house to keep out theharsh weather and wild beasts; of healing, in view of changes inthe qualities and internal feeling of the body. For if we had nosuch feeling, we should not suffer; and not suffering, should notfeel the need of healing; and so, by not curing our ill, we shouldperish through not knowing that we had any.6

feed on small grubs and seeds. Skard, Memosiosstudien 11, p. 13, notes thatNemesius is so absorbed in his secular sources as not to remember theserpent (on the strength of Gen. 3:14) among the eaters of earth.

5 This sentence might be taken to mean that it is man's glory to be coveredby art and not by nature. The opposite sense is more probable. Man inparadise was naked because, for beauty and dignity, there is no equal tothe "human form divine." Many of the Fathers supposed that the sinof our first parents was that they anticipated the time of their destinedwedlock, and so turned nakedness, which should have been their dignity,into shame. Thus clothes are a consequence of the fall and the badge ofour disgrace.

6 Jaeger (Nemesius, p. 126, Note 1 and p. 127) shows reason for tracingback to Posidonius the foregoing series of observations taken from thefields of chemistry, zoology, and medicine.


Because of the arts and sciences and the useful things towhich they lead, we have mutual need of one another. Andbecause we need one another, we come together into one placein large numbers, and share with each other the necessities ofour life, in common intercourse. To this human assemblage andcohabitation we have given the name of city. And therein wehave profit one from other, by propinquity, and by not needingto travel.

For man is a naturally sociable animal, and made for citizen-ship. No single person is in all ways self-sufficient. And so it isclear, how that cities exist for the sake of intercourse, and for thesake of learning from each other.7

COMMENTARY

6. Maris precarious constitution leads to his being a social creature.Nemesius now leaves Origen, as Skard demonstrates (op. cit.Fasc. xvii. pp. 9-18), to resume the Posidonian doctrine of manas mediated through Galen, with facts and phrases from Galenthickly scattered through the section. The facts of nutrition and

7 There were, in later Greek thought, two rival views on the subject ofthe city. On the one hand, there was the "high," or Platonic, view, whichregarded the city with veneration. In Platonism, all culture derived fromthe idea of the city. And Greek cities claimed to owe not only their exis-tence but their laws and constitutions to their divine or heroic founders.With such a view of the city, politics ranked but little below religion.On the other hand there was the Epicurean reaction, which flouted thedoctrine of the golden age, the source of all good institutions, includingthe city. Epicurus characteristically derived civilization from man'sstriving to escape from the anguish of his needs. Posidonius may becredited with mediating between these opposed views, with the doctrinethat civilization is the child of need and reason. Origen reproduces sucha doctrine in Against Celsus, iv. 76, and it is likely that he did so in theCommentary on Genesis in connection with the biblical history. EvenChristian Platonists shrank from the "high" view of the city, as likelyto attach men's hearts and minds to this world (cf. Heb. 13:14). AlsoScripture gave an unfavourable account of the origin of cities. (Gen. 4:17,"Cain builded a city," and Babel, Gen. 11). Christian opinion must havebeen known to be unfavourable to glorification of the city, for Celsusand Julian the Apostate alike gird at Christianity as unfitting men forpolitical life. Origen was sensitive to this charge, and ready, on thisquestion, to follow Posidonius rather than Plato. And here we may havethe explanation of the solution adopted by Nemesius, to the question ofthe city, to wit that the city is the remedy permitted by providence forthe clamorous needs which man incurred through the Fall. As Nemesiusstates this solution, at the end of the section, he provides a mediatingview on a controversial subject, such as might prove to be good apologetic.


wastage, of sickness and vulnerability, combine to enforce themoral of man's neediness. But necessity is the mother of inven-tion. And man's supreme invention is the city, which brings tohim his chiefest blessing, which is to be social. Where Posidoniusextolled the cleverness of man in making assets of his infirmities,Nemesius connects man's neediness with his fall, and so suggeststhat the happy outcome is a mercy of Providence.

TEXT

[M.52. 12-56. 6.]7. Man has two choice prerogatives, which are as follows,

and are shared by no other creature. Man, only, on repentingcan gain forgiveness. And only man's body, though mortal, isimmortalized. This privilege of the body is for the soul's sake.So, likewise, the soul's privilege is on account of the body. Forit is only man, among the rational beings, that has this uniqueprivilege, of claiming forgiveness by repenting. Neither demonsnor angels repent and are forgiven. In this fact, most particu-larly, God shows himself both just and merciful, and is so ac-knowledged. As for angels, seeing that there is no compulsiondrawing them to sin, and that they are by nature exempt frombodily passions, needs, and pleasures, there is plain reason whythey cannot claim pardon by repenting. Man, on the otherhand, is not only rational but a living organism. The wants andpassions of a living creature often distract his consideration.Afterwards, when he comes to his senses again, and, fleeinglust, returns to the way of the virtues, he obtains both justiceand mercy in pardon. Now, just as laughter is a peculiar markof man's being, because it is something that pertains to himonly, to every single man, and to all men at all times, so, in likefashion, it is peculiar to man that he, in distinction from allother creatures endowed with reason, should, by God's grace,be released, upon repentance, from the guilt of former trans-gressions. This, too, pertains to man only, to every single man,and to all men at all times, while still living in this world,though not after death.1

1 The only thing that Nemesius here reveals of the Christian doctrine ofthe forgiveness of sins is that man has his privilege of pardon only on thisside of the grave. He says nothing of the terms of such pardon. It hadbeen thought, in the primitive church, that there was only one pardon,granted in baptism. Early in the second century, this belief began to becontroverted. A principal document of the controversy is the sermon


Some will have it that, in like manner, the angels have nomore any place of repentance unto pardon since the Fall, seeingthat the Fall took the place of death for them. Before the Fall, inwhat, for them, corresponded with man's lifetime, angels alsohad a claim on pardon. But since they did not make good theirclaim, it remains that they receive the fitting sentence of punish-ment, without pardon and without end.2 These considerations

known by the misleading title of Second Epistle of Clement, in which (ch. 8)it is argued that, while we live on earth, we can be compared with clayin the hands of a potter. Till the pot is fired it can be remoulded. The firingof the pot represents a man's death. Thereafter repentance and pardonare possible no more. But while we live in the body pardon is still possible.This teaching played an important part in opening the way to a recog-nition, in the Church, of post-baptismal penance. But it is teaching thatrests on reason, and not on revelation. And so Nemesius might rightlyfeel that he could use it, as here, for an apologetic purpose.

2 The doctrine here enunciated of the probation and pardon of angels isnot likely to be original with Nemesius; but it has only come down to usin this passage, reproduced by John of Damascus in the eighth centurywithout any sign of knowledge other than that of the passage itself.Origen allotted indefinite repentance to all spiritual beings, with the corol-lary that all spiritual beings might at last be saved, not excepting thedevil. The vast theory of creation and redemption of which this universal-ism is the end was generally disowned by Christian theologians. In reactionfrom it, the view was adopted by many that incorporeal spirits must, ina flash, have made their irreversible decision, for or against fidelity totheir Creator. This view, however, lacked the support of Christian anti-quity, which inclined to belief in some kind of probation of the angels.Thus Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing about A.D. 115 to the Churchof Smyrna says, "the angels who do not believe in the blood of Christare judged." (ch. 6.) And Irenaeus (late second century), as quoted byEusebius in his Church History, iv. 18, cites in turn Justin Martyr (mid-second century) as saying that "before our Lord's coming, Satan neverdared to blaspheme God, since he did not know, till that time, that hehimself had been condemned." This should apparently mean that Satan'scondemnation did not become final, nor Satan desperate, until he hadslain Christ. The idea is repeated later in Epiphanius (Panarion, Heresy39), and by Isidore of Pelusium. We may supply what is lacking in thereference of Nemesius to the probation of angels, with the help of fourthcentury writers who were not in sharp reaction from Origen. Thus, Basilthe Great, in his first Homily on the six days of Creation, ch. 5, says that thespiritual and incorporeal orders of being were created before the materialuniverse, which, when it had been created, was put under the governmentof angels, whose fidelity was thus under probation. Gregory of Nyssaaccordingly supposes (Catechetical Oration, ch. 6) that Satan was the arch-angel set in charge of the sublunary world, and that his envy of the finalcreature, man, led to his fall and that of the world he ruled. GregoryNazianzen (Sermon xxxviii) supposes that the nature of angels is suchas to be moved from godliness only with great difficulty, but that whenthis has happened, the fallen angels become creators of evil. As we have


make it clear that any who will not repent, renounce a giftunique and peculiar to man.

Peculiar also to man, and unique, so that man alone of livingcreatures enjoys it, is for his body to rise again after death andenter upon immortality. It has this privilege on account of thesoul's immortality, just as the soul has the other privilege forthe body's sake, which is infirm and troubled by manypassions.

Further, it is peculiar to man to learn arts and sciences, andto practise the arts; so that man has been defined as a rationalliving creature, mortal, and capable of intelligence and know-ledge.3 He is said to be a living creature because man is essen-tially ensouled and sentient, whereby he fulfils the definition ofa living creature. He is said to be rational, in contradistinctionto the irrational beasts, and to be mortal, by contrast with theimmortal rational beings. And the phrase, "capable of intelli-gence and knowledge," points to our being able to learn arts

seen above, Cyril of Jerusalem {Catechetical Lecture, 11. 10) says, "We knownot how much God forgave to angels, for them also did he forgive, sinceone only is sinless." In the light of these passages, we can make thefollowing hypothetical reconstruction of the doctrine to which Nemesiusmakes what is, in fact, no more than a suggestive allusion. God firstcreated angels, to whom his being and will were, for the most part,mysterious. Their fidelity was, like their knowledge, imperfect. But whilethey presumed, and needed forgiveness, they were being progressivelysanctified by the Holy Ghost. At last God disclosed his will to create amaterial world for the sake of a new and embodied spiritual being, man.This was the most difficult mystery for angels to receive. Lucifer, set incharge of the sublunary world at its creation, envied his charges, Adamand Eve, and lured them into sin, thus precipitating the final mystery,that of redemption. Thus it was the doom pronounced upon the serpent,ending with the prophecy concerning the seed of the woman, that mightappear to mark the decisive moment for the fall or salvation of the angelichost. The angels either then vowed themselves to adore the mystery ofredemption, and were pardoned and saved (and these are Michael andhis angels, who are the ministers of providence, until the final restoration)or rebelled against it, so as to have no more hope or desire for pardon.So Satan fell "like lightning from heaven," to seek furiously, with hisassociates, to establish their rebellion, in the subversion of providencein its task of redemption.

3 Professor Skard (loc. cit., p. 43) points out that this definition of man iscited also by Basil the Great and Apollinarius. Presumably it was coinedby a philosopher. And Nemesius clearly cites it from a commentary onthis philosopher, in which the definition is examined and justified bythe observation, so strangely transcribed by the Christian author, thatthe last part of the definition is needed to distinguish man from "nymphsand other minor deities." Ammonius, or one of the early Neo-Platonists,may be conjectured, as the author of the definition.


and sciences, since we have, indeed, a capacity both for intelli-gence and for arts, but only attain the practice of them bylearning them. Some say that this phrase is an addition to thedefinition, which, as a definition, is sufficient without it. It isused because certain others have brought into the argumentnymphs4 and suchlike minor deities that are credited with vastlongevity, though not with immortality. So, to differentiatefrom man such beings, there has been added to the definitionthe words "capable of intelligence and knowledge," since thosebeings are not supposed to learn, but to know whatever theyknow by gift of nature.4 The belief in nymphs, in classical religion, is a survival from animism,

the stage of culture at which every individuated aspect or part of Natureis supposed to be indwelt by its own particular spirit. Nymphs werepoetically pictured as beautiful maidens, and thus corporeal. But theproverb that a man who saw a nymph would be doomed to hopelesspassion suggests that nymphs were thought of, alternatively, as invisiblespirits. Their part was to personify a place, tree, or stream. As such theycame to be thought of as minor deities, and Homer, in the Iliad, makesZeus summon them to a meeting of the immortals. But Bishop Fell, ina note on this passage in his Oxford edition of Nemesius, cites passagesin Pliny's Natural History showing that nymphs were not themselvesimmortal. Naturally, a dryad, or tree-nymph, might be supposed to beinvolved in the mortality of the tree. Accordingly Pliny attributes tonymphs not immortality but fabulous longevity. Our surprise thatNemesius should include such pagan matter in his work may be lessenedby consideration of the way in which the sibyls, who might be classedwith "nymphs and other minor deities," were generally accepted intoChristian lore. The name "Sibyl" means "will of God." The sibyls ofGreek mythology were women of incredible age, possessing a knowledgeof the will of heaven which they declared in oracular sentences. Jewishapologists, shortly before the Christian era, saw in the sibyls some parallelto the Hebrew prophets, and conceived the plan of commending biblicalnotions of providence and of morality to Greek pagan readers by couchingthem in fictitious "sibylline oracles." These sibylline books were acceptedat their face value in the Church, and were even improved upon byChristian pseudepigraphers. Thus, while the gods of pagan worship wereidentified by Christians with the fallen angels, sibyls, nymphs and fairieswere allowed a character of innocence, so as even to be accounted minorministers of providence.

If a sibyl was supposed to possess her knowledge by gift of nature, andnot by process of learning, so, a fortiori, must it be with incorporeal beings.In this way the allusion to the nymphs which Nemesius found in hisNeo-Platonist commentary helped him to complete his account of therelations of the mortal corporeal rational creature man with the intelligibleworld, in that, whereas the incorporeal beings possess knowledge by giftof nature, man attains it by understanding and learning.


COMMENTARY

7. Marts remaining prerogatives: in life> pardon and progress•, andafter death the hope to rise again. So far, the Posidonian doctrine ofman, mediated either by Origen or Galen, has provided most ofthe matter for Nemesius, and is to be resumed again after thissection. But now there is a break of continuity. The vocabularyof this section is sharply un-Origenistic (see E. Skard, JVeme-siosstudien 1, Anhang). Section 7 is made up of the combinationof two articles of the creed (the forgiveness of sins, and theresurrection of the body) with two secular maxims (man is alaughing animal who learns). The total effect of this bizarrecombination is to set man in contrast with all incorporeal beingsand in a unique position relatively to corporeal beings. It is as ifNemesius would answer the question, what prerogatives orliabilities of man's nature have gone as yet unnamed ? Then,having briefly named them, he returns to them no more. Thatfact, however, is hardly so strange as that a Christian authorshould have at all introduced credal themes into a work ofapologetic; though nothing of a specifically Christian characteris revealed, on either subject. Perhaps Nemesius felt that man'srelationship with the phenomenal universe was so well elab-orated in his sources that he must try to dress the balance bysupplying all he could, bearing upon man's relations with theother universe, the world of incorporeal creatures. What Chris-tian source Nemesius used in this section is uncertain.

TEXT

[M.56. 6-60. 7.]8. It is a doctrine of the Jews that the whole world was made

for the sake of man; some things directly for his sake, such asbeasts of burden and oxen for farm work, while grass was madefor provender for these creatures. Some things were made fortheir own sakes, and some for the sake of other things. Allrational beings were created for their own sakes, while theirrational and inanimate creatures exist for the sake of othersthan themselves. Now if they exist for the sake of others, wemust ask, What others? For the angels, perhaps? No man ofsense could argue that! For things that exist for the sake of otherthings serve for the constitution, the continuance, or the restor-ation of those things; which is to say, either for the propagationof the species, or its nourishment, covering, cure, welfare, or


recreation. An angel needs none of these things. For angels haveno progeny, want no bodily food or clothing or any such require-ment. Now if that is so for an angel, it is clear that it must betrue of any super-angelic being. The higher the order, so muchthe less its needs.

So we have to seek out some being whose nature is rational,which nevertheless requires to propagate its kind, and so on. Ifwe leave man on one side, what other such nature can we find?It is to be inferred, therefore, that it is man for whose sake ir-rational living creatures and inanimate things were made. If,then, they were made, as has been shown, for man's sake, that iswhy he was constituted lord over those creatures. A lord's busi-ness it is to make a temperate use of whatever is under hisauthority, not to wax wanton and sate appetite with pleasure,nor to treat his subjects tyrannously or harshly. Such as ill-usethe irrational beasts, sin, therefore, for they do not play the parteither of lord or righteous man; as it is written, "The righteousman hath compassion on the life of his beast."1

But, like as not, someone will assert that there is nothing but;was made for its own sake, and not for the sake of somethingelse. Let us, then, separate inanimate from living things, in thefirst instance, and look whether inanimate things are likely tohave been made for their own sakes. If they were so made, howor on what should living things be fed ? For we behold Natureproducing the nourishment of all animals (at least, if we exceptthe carnivores), in the form of fruits and herbs, from the earth.And even the carnivores live on those animals that graze on theearth, as when wolves and lions devour lambs, goats, pigs ordeer, or eagles raven on partridges, wood pigeons, hares, andsuchlike creatures that feed on the fruits of the earth. It is of thenature of fishes to live on one another. And yet flesh-feedingdoes not extend to all of them, but we come in the end to fishesthat feed on seaweed and certain other things that grow in thewater. Had all types of fish preyed on others, and had noneturned from a carnivorous diet, fishes would not long have en-dured, but would have died out, some destroyed by others, andsome of mere starvation. So that that might not happen somefishes were so made as to abstain from flesh, and graze, so tospeak, on sea-pasture while the others are kept alive by feedingon them. Seaweed is fodder for the one kind, which in turnforms the diet of the other kinds, and these of yet others. Thus,through the feeding of the basic orders offish, provided to them

1 Prov. 12:10 (A. V. "regardeth the life").


without stint by the earthy flooring of the sea, the other types offishes are kept going. Our argument has proved, therefore, thatthe creation of plants cannot have been for the sake of plants,but must have been for the nourishment and subsistence of menand other living creatures. And if they were thus made for thesake of men and other living creatures, it is evident that themeans of growth and propagation of the latter is provided bythe former.2

Then, next, the motions of the heavenly bodies, the firma-ment, the seasons of the year, the rains, and all such naturalprocesses, were therefore ordained so that the nature of thefruit-eating creatures might continue, and so the whole cycle ofnourishment be provided without a break. We thus find thatthe celestial cycle is for the sake of the fruits of the earth, andthese fruits are for the sake of living creatures, and, in the end,of man.3

COMMENTARY

8. The world was made for man. In this section we return to thePosidonian doctrine of the nature of man, mediated by Philo,On the creation of the world, through Origen's Commentary onGenesis. Therefore it is introduced with a reference to "theJewish doctrine" that the world was made for man; a doctrineactually stated in these terms, "that the Lord resolved the agefor the sake of man," in the Sclavonic Secrets of Enoch, LXV. 3(R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa-ment, 11. 467). The idea itself, however, had been in course ofdevelopment from some while before the Christian era. In2 E. Skard, Nemesiosstudien 11, pp. 23-25, argues that Galen is the immediate

source for this argument from zoology.3 The argument that lower creatures do not exist for their own sakes, but

for the use and sustenance of higher orders, is contained in Origen,Against Celsus, iv. 74-78. As a similar argument appears in Basil the Great,On the Six days of Creation, ix. 2, and in Gregory of Nyssa's On the constitutionof man (ch. 8), it is highly probable that it was rehandled by Origen in hisCommentary on Genesis, which was used by both these writers. Moreover,that the argument derives from Posidonius is made probable by the factthat Origen admits it to be an argument "of the Stoics"; also because itis reproduced by Cicero, in On the nature of the gods, ii. 133 and following,and in Seneca, Letters 92 and 94, both these writers being stronglyinfluenced by Posidonius. Again, Origen's views on the heavenly bodiesexpressed in his First Principles would not lead us to expect the doctrinewhich he teaches in Against Celsus, iv. 77, that the heavenly bodies subservethe needs of man. A reasonable explanation is that the latter passagereflects the influence upon Origen of the Posidonian doctrine of thenature of man.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 25I

Wisdom 7:1-14, man is the nursling of divine Wisdom, while in10:1-2, the thought is applied to Adam. It has been conjecturedthat the doom pronounced upon the Prince of Tyre in Ezek.28:13-15 originated in a "Doom of Adam," in which was ex-pressed the doctrine that man is the crown of God's purpose increation. For the Jews, however, the crown of mankind is thechosen people, and the Son of man in Dan. 7:13 is no doubttheir personification. The passage expresses the belief that Godmade the world for the sake of Israel. By the second centurythis idea was transferred by Christians to apply to the newIsrael, the Church. The Shepherd of Hermas and the SecondEpistle of Clement are at one in teaching that the end of creation,which God set before him from before all ages, was an ideal andeverlasting Church. It thus appears that the doctrine that theworld was made for man is of religious and scriptural inspira-tion, rather than philosophic. Nevertheless, the syllogistic argu-ment of this section came from Posidonius, an argument provingdeductively that man is the crown of the natural order, becausethe lower grades of being, directly, and the celestial bodies,indirectly, serve his needs. The Commentary on Genesis is the pro-bable intermediary through which the substance of the Posidon-ian argument came to Nemesius, but the debating style intowhich it is worked up in this section may be credited to ourauthor himself.

TEXT[M.60. 7-63. 14.]

9. For the rest, we have to consider whether the category ofirrational creatures was made for its own sake or for that of man.There is obvious absurdity in the suggestion that things in-capable of purposeful cogitation, living solely by natural im-pulse, whose attitude bent down to earth indicates that they areslaves,1 should have been introduced for their own sakes. Muchcould fitly be said on this point; so much, in fact, as to call foralmost a whole book to itself. But lest the volume of my argu-ment get out of hand, I had best turn to a summary statementthat nevertheless includes the chief points.

If, then, we look into the things of the external universe re-

1 This common-place, drawing a lesson from the singularity of man's erectstance, while found in a wide range of settings, from the opening ofSallust's Cataline to Basil's, Six days of creation, appears here, according toJaeger (Nemesios, pp. 129-31) in its original setting, as it stood in theargument of Posidonius.


fleeted in man as in a mirror, we shall be basing our demonstra-tion upon the reality of the subjects of our enquiry.2 For we seethat in the human soul there is an irrational element with itsown characteristic functions; such, I mean, as appetite or anger.When a man is keeping the laws of nature, these irrationalfunctions are given to him to be subservient to the rational,which is the ruler while they are the governed, which givescommands while they receive them and minister to whateverpurposes reason dictates. Now if the rational in us bears ruleover the irrational in us, why should we not conclude thatreason also rules the irrational creatures in the universe outsideus, and that they have been provided to serve its ends ? For theirrational is naturally subject to the rational, as has been provedby introspection.

This, and the creation of many kinds of animals adapted toprovide service to man, such as oxen and all beasts of burden forfarming and transport, the multitude of things that fly in the airor swim the seas or swarm upon dry land which prove to man'sadvantage, and talking birds3 that serve for his delight and

2 Nemesius is here making his appeal to the current doctrine that manis a tiny reflection of the universe. From the third century B.G. the Stoicschool of philosophers worked upon the assumption that the universe isa living creature with its own rationality and order. Man being also aliving creature, comparison between man and the universe followed.Difference was observed between human ways and the ways of Nature,between man-made laws and customs and the laws governing theuniverse. It was acknowledged that the impulses given by nature weredirected to the right ends, with the consequence that human happinessmust be sought in understanding and accepting the world-order. So theStoic ethic was an ethic of correspondence with Nature, and concentratedattention upon the correspondences between elements of man's nature andthe characteristics of the universe. By the time of Nemesius, these cor-respondences had come to be regarded as complete. Thus Gregory ofNyssa had written, a few years before Nemesius, "Man is said by thephilosophers to be a little world, containing in himself all those elementsof which the universe is made up." Nemesius accepts this as dogma,and expects a constant analogy between man and the universe. Accord-ingly he argues, here, that truths about the universe can be deducedfrom observation of man, and vice versa. This dogma was revived by thealchemists of the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries. The half-chemist, half-charlatan, Paracelsus invented the term "microcosm" applied to man.This final stage of its history shows up the element of superstition latentin the notion of man as a microcosm, which may be described as anthropo-morphism applied, not to God, but to the knowable universe.

3 Literally, "imita ting-creatures." Nemesius is possibly thinking of monkeys.His explanation here is that God made these creatures for the amusementof man. In Section 3 above we found him suggesting that God made themas a prelude to making articulate man.


recreation, combine to put the conclusion beyond all doubt. Ifall creatures do not, on the other hand, have such pleasant uses,but there are some, even, that do man harm, we must knowthat when the animals intended to be useful to man werecreated, all other possible animals were also prepared, lestcreation should lack anything possible. Neither do thesecreatures wholly avoid conferring profit on man, for reasonturns the evidently venomous creatures to its own advantage.It makes use of them, for example, in curing the harm whichthey themselves have done, as well as to provide medica-ments for other ailments, such as certain preparations calledtheriacs,4 which reason has discovered, wherewith to over-come these harmful creatures by their own products, so asto take spoils, as it were, from conquered foes. Man has, bygrace of his Creator, myriad powerful antidotes to these kindsof harm, and such as can hinder, ward off, or correct, theirassaults.

Other animals are adapted to other needs. All kinds are atone in contributing naturally to the healing of man, even thosethat seem to serve no other human purpose.

Let so much be said as applicable to the present state of ourlife, seeing that, in the far-off beginning, no other living creaturedared to do man harm. They were all slaves and subjects of his,and obedient, so long as he controlled his own passions and theirrational element within him. But when he did not control hisown passions but was conquered by them, he was also easilyovercome by wild things outside him. For together with sinthere entered in also harm from these creatures.5

The truth of this is confirmed by the instances of those whohave lived the best of lives. For these were seen to be, beyondall gainsaying, superior to the evil assaults of wild beasts;4 A theriac is an antidote for the bite or sting of a wild beast or poisonous

reptile. As the flesh of an adder was supposed to be the essential antidotefor an adder-bite, the physicians, when making up a theriac for adder-bites, would inevitably include dried and pounded flesh of adder, as aningredient. They may well have chanced upon other ingredients ofpractical value. Nemesius accepts the notion that the essential of a theriacis a derivative of the harmful creature, and is seen again to be in super-stition. But his argument would appear convincing and scientific to menof his age.

5 The belief in a golden age at the beginning of the world was widespread.Christians, with the prophecy in Isa. 11 of a golden age to come, tosuggest it, concluded that the animals had all been harmless in Eden,and that their deterioration, and that of the earth and plants and othercreatures, was the fruit of man's sin.


Daniel was superior, for example, to attack by lions, and Paulto the bite of an adder.6

COMMENTARY

9. Lower creatures exist for marts sake. This section retraces theargument of the last, with the particular application to sup-posed evidence that the lower animals were created for the sakeof man. We here see the scientific apologetic of Nemesius at itsweakest, not because he is Christian, but because he representsthe somewhat shallow optimism of a current philosophy forwhich "no phenomenon is without a name, and no problemwithout a solution." It was impatience, and certainly not thelack of ingenuity, that was the besetting sin of fourth to fifthcentury science. An explanation must be found for everything,and often more than one explanation. And these hastily in-vented explanations blocked the way to further fruitful studyof the facts. The Christian apologist cannot transcend thescience of his age, and is therefore apt to be involved in itserrors, like Nemesius in this section, which is still (apart fromthe biblical conclusion) in the Posidonian tradition. Jaeger, op.cit. pp. 132-3, notes the parallels in our section with Cicero, Onthe nature of the gods, ii. 148-159, also Posidonian. That Origen isagain the medium through whom this, or much of it, hasreached Nemesius may be gathered from Skard, Nemesiosstudien!• PP- 33-35-

TEXT

[M.63. 14-67. 1.]10. When we consider these facts about man, how can we

exaggerate the dignity of his place in creation? In his ownperson, man joins mortal creatures with the immortals, andbrings the rational beings into contact with the irrational. Hebears about in his proper nature a reflex of the whole creation,and is therefore rightly called "the world in little."1 He is thecreature whom God thought worthy of such special providencethat, for his sake, all creatures have their being, both those that

6 The incidents of Dan. 6 and Acts 28 are thus interpreted as anticipationsof the coming age. Jaeger, op. cit., p. 133, thinks that this thought is notoriginal with Nemesius, but comes from a Christian source known alsoto Basil. Skard, I.e., points to the parallel in Theodoret, On Providence, v,and hints that this source may be some work of Origen.

1 The title mikros kosmos which man here receives is the nearest that antiquityapproached to the term microcosm, coined in more modern times.


now are, and those that are yet to be.2 He is the creature forwhose sake God became man, so that this creature might attainincorruption and escape corruption, might reign on high, beingmade after the image and likeness of God, dwelling with Christas a child of God, and might be throned above all rule and allauthority.3 Who, then, can fully express the pre-eminence of sosingular a creature? Man crosses the mighty deep, contem-plates the range of the heavens, notes the motion, position, andsize of the stars, and reaps a harvest both from land and sea,scorning the rage of wild beasts and the might of whales. Helearns all kinds of knowledge, gains skill in arts, and pursuesscientific enquiry. By writing, he addresses himself to whom hewill, however far away, unhindered by bodily location.4 Heforetells the future, rules everything, subdues everything, enjoyseverything. He converses with angels and with God himself.He gives orders to creation. Devils are subject to him. He ex-plores the nature of every kind of being. He busies himself withthe knowing of God, and is God's house and temple. And allthese privileges he is able to purchase at the cost of virtue andgodliness.

But we must not let ourselves appear to any to be making, outof place, a panegyric on man, instead of a straightforward

2 Nemesius cannot mean that God will create, for example, new kinds ofanimal, in the future, since he has asserted, in the last section, that everypossible form of animal was created when the animal world received itsbeing on the sixth day of creation. The things here referred to, as yet tobe created for man's sake, are those which will replace present creatures,at the final restoration of all things.

3 Skard {Nemesiosstudien 1, p. 36) claims that Christian phrases are heregrafted on to matter to which they are quite foreign. To say this is tosuppose Nemesius unable, through ignorance of the meaning of paganthought, to recognize the incongruity. But he had lived in the pagansetting, and had passed from it, by conviction, into Christian belief.We must say, rather, that, as a convert, he believed that pagan thoughtabout the dignity of man might be a bridge to Christianity.

4 The translation here offered requires the stop to be placed after empodizo-menos, whereas Matthaei (p. 65, line 4) puts it after the phrase nextfollowing. His argument for doing so is that it gives the sense, "Man . . .prophesies things to come, unhindered by the body," and that this isan anticipation of what is said in Section 21 about prophetic dreams.However, the opening of Section 32 shows that Nemesius did not confineprophetic foreknowledge to that derived from dreams. There is the lessreason, therefore, for expecting him to account prophecy by dreamsworthy to be singled out as one of the special glories of man; as we mustsuppose is the case if we punctuate and translate with Matthaei. On theother hand, the reference to bodily location is quite appropriate, inconnection with communication by writing.


description of his nature, as we proposed to do. Let us, there-fore, intermit, at this point, our discourse on man; albeit we arediscoursing of his nature while we are recounting his preroga-tives.

Knowing, then, the nobility of which we are partakers, andhow we are "a planting from heaven,"5 let us do nothing thatwould put our nature to shame, or publish us as unfit to be therecipients of so great a bounty. Let us not cheat ourselves of allthis power, glory, and blessedness by bartering the enjoyment ofall eternal things for a brief season of pleasure that cannot last.Let us, rather, safeguard our high standing by doing good andeschewing evil, and by keeping before us a good aim, wherebydivine grace is specially wont to be invoked; and, of course, byprayer.

So much concerning man's high estate. But the common say-ing has it that man consists of soul and body. Therefore let ustreat first and definitively of man's soul, avoiding over-subtleand dry investigations and all problems too hard for the man inthe street to understand.6

COMMENTARY

10. A panegyric on man. The panegyric on man with whichNemesius ends his first chapter owes much to the Posidoniandoctrine that man is the crown of the natural order, but ismuch more general in scope than the theme elaborated in theearlier part of the chapter. Navigation, astronomy, agricultureand fisheries, science and letters, versatility, contemplation,and exorcism are all subjects now laid under tribute, for theglorification of man, that have not appeared earlier. The termsin which the panegyric is here presented are those of a populartheme to which Stoic, Neo-Platonist and Christian have eachcontributed their characteristic thoughts. Jaeger {Nemesios.p. 134) illustrates the similarities between this section and thepanegyric on man in Cicero, On the nature of the gods, 11. 153; forthe fact is that they are both in a succession of rhetorical com-monplace. While Nemesius is a writer whose sources become5Cf. Isa. 61:3.6 We thus have an indication of Nemesius' own idea of the scope and purpose

of his book. It is a persuasive addressed to the ordinary reading publicof his land and generation, poised between the new faith and traditionalHellenic culture, and to the yet humbler folk to be reached through suchreaders. If it may seem to us that his argument is pitched rather high for"the man in the street," we must allow something for the high level ofSyrian Greek culture at the end of the fourth Christian century.


obvious with study, he is more spontaneous than some of thesource-critics give him credit for being. In this section he isfreely rehandling a well-worn theme. The result is a wonderfulpatchwork, because, presumably, he wants every reader to findsome watchwords of his own. But it is good apologetic; aboveall by the way in which it insinuates that Christianity hasmeans to enhance the theme of man's glory, beyond anythingthat pagan rhetoricians can make of it. It is, moreover, some-thing of a tour deforce to have taken thought so pagan and secularas is the greater part of the content of this panegyric, and im-posed upon it a Christian interpretation.

I I . Of the soul

TEXT[M.67. 1-69. 12.]

11. The subject of the soul is differently handled by almostevery ancient author. Democritus, Epicurus, and the entireschool of Stoics, affirm categorically that the soul is corporeal.l

But these very people, when they have agreed that the soul iscorporeal, cannot agree about its essence. The Stoics assert it tobe a hot and burning breath. But Critias identifies it withblood,2 the philosopher Hippon with water,3 and Democrituswith fire, to the extent that the spherical shape of the atoms offire and air causes them to separate out from other matter and

1 The Stoic school of philosophy was founded at Athens in the middlethird century, B.C., by Zeno, who taught in the Stoa, or portico. TheStoics were monistic, holding that every real existent must be actualizedin some kind of body. They supposed any living creature to be animatedby a soul consisting of a subtle and tenuous substance, capable of per-meating the grosser material organism. This belief, which Nemesiusrejects, was accepted by many Christians, of whom the most famous wasTertullian, about two centuries before Nemesius.

2 It does not seem possible to identify this Gritias. The idea that the bloodis the seat of the life or soul is primitive and widespread. (See Lev. 17:11,14, and Aristotle, On the soul, i. 2). The Stoic view had the advantage ofexplaining why living bodies are warm, but met with a difficulty in thefact of cold-blooded animals.

3 The Physicum or Book of Nature of Hippon is much quoted, and it seemslikely that its author was of the Ionian school of materialistic philosopherswhich flourished in the sixth century B.G. He held heat and water to bethe two basic existents. Observing semen to be liquid, he supposed soulto be something conveyed in semen, and hence defined it as "generativewater."17—c.j.


unite to constitute soul.4 Heraclitus, on the other hand, sup-poses that the soul of the universe is an exhalation of vapourfrom all moist things, while the souls of living creatures aremade of a combination of the general exhalation from withoutand the exhalation from within their own bodies, so as to givethem the particular nature appropriate to their kind.5

Amongst those who do not suppose soul to be corporeal thedifferences of opinion are almost without number. Some saythat the soul is a self-subsisting thing, and immortal. Some,while denying the soul corporeity, grant it neither self-sub-sistence nor immortality. Thales was the first to say that thesoul is a perpetual self-movent.6 Pythagoras called it a self-moved number.7 Plato held it a self-subsisting thing, intellig-

4 Democritus was born at Abdera in Thrace early in the fifth century, B.C.,and is accounted the greatest of the Greek physical philosophers. Havingstudied mathematics in Egypt, he conceived a mechanistic universe,consisting of an infinite number of tiny atoms moving in space. He supposedthe atoms of solid substances, say iron, to be rough and jagged, so that, whenbrought together, they interlock and become immovable. Atoms of waterhe supposed smooth and spherical, whence water runs. Atoms of air andfire he supposed to be small enough to slip in among the atoms of solidsand liquids. Thus he conceived the idea that the soul of a living organismwas due to a marriage of these tiniest atoms. Such a soul would becorporeal, and the dissolution of soul and body would take place together.A century later, Epicurus developed an ethical philosophy on the basisof the physics of Democritus, but one giving soul a particular substanceof its own, apart from air and fire. Nemesius thus groups the atomistswith the Stoics, as advocates of a corporeal nature of the soul.

5 Heraclitus of Ephesus, 540-475 B.C., in criticism of the materialistphysical theories, insisted on the unreliability of the senses. Sure knowledgecomes only from reason and mind. The philosophy of Heraclitus wasmetaphysical. The order in the universe is intelligible, while the physicalbeing of the universe is not. The soul of a living creature may be moresurely known than anything else about it. The theory of soul, in thispassage, seeks to explain the individuality of species in relation to theuniversal order.

« Thales of Miletus, seventh century B.C, is regarded as the father ofGreek philosophy, properly so called. Nemesius is here found in accordwith Stobaeus (fifth century A.D.) against the testimony of Aristotle,in crediting Thales with being the first to recognize "soul" as a principle,setting matter in motion.

i Pythagoras, in the sixth century B.C., taught a mystical creed in whichnumber had prime significance. With his dictum "All things are numbers"we may compare "God is three and God is one" in "St Patrick's breast-plate." In modern terms, the character and identity of each livingindividual persist, through changes, because "each has its own formula."Pseudo-Plutarch (op. cit., iv. 2) criticizes Pythagoras for saying that thesoul is a number, but would agree to saying that the soul was ruled bya number, differentiating the soul, as an existent, from the "number/*


ible, self-moved, and harmonious according to number.8 Aris-totle, on the other hand, held the soul to be the fundamentalenergy possessed by a physical organic body, giving it thepower to live.9 Dicaearchus defined soul as the harmoniouscombination of the four elements. He means by this an agree-able mingling of the elements, for it is a harmony not composedof sounds, but is the harmonious blending and concord of hotand cold, of moist and dry, in the body.10 So we see that Aris-totle and Dicaearchus hold the soul not to be a self-subsistingthing, while all the others whom we have mentioned assert thatthe soul is a self-subsisting thing.

There have been others, again, who believed that one and thesame universal soul is parcelled out to the several animatebeings, and will return to exist by itself again; as think theManichees11 and some others. Some there are that suppose

or formula governing its life. But pseudo-Plutarch, on whom Nemesiushere depends, whether directly or indirectly, is wrong in attributing toPythagoras the definition of the soul as "self-movent number." The Neo-Platonists derived this definition from Xenocrates (on whom, see Section12, note 6).

8 Plato was the first to assert, against the Pythagoreans, the substantivebeing of the soul. He followed them, however, in saying that though thesoul is not number, reason, or harmony, it possesses number, reason,and harmony as its attributes.

9 Aristotle's doctrine of the "entelechy" (here translated "fundamentalenergy") of individual existents draws back somewhat, as Nemesiusclaims, from the Platonic doctrine of the soul as a substantive existent,so as to represent the soul as an abstraction, while recognizing that thepower by which the thing maintains itself derives from the soul.

The phrase "the soul is the first entelechy of the body" comes fromAristotle, On the Soul, ii. 1, but here, perhaps, through pseudo-Plutarch.

10 The text of Nemesius, at this and two other places, gives the nameDinarchus. But it would appear that this is either an uncorrected slipon the part of Nemesius (and so possible evidence for lack of revision)or an error introduced by a copyist very early in the MS tradition. Thename Dicaearchus has been substituted by Matthaei for that of Dinar-chus, because the opinions attributed by the MSS to Dinarchus are thoseattributed by pseudo-Plutarch (op. cit., iv. 2) and by Diogenes Laertius,in his Lives of the philosophers, to Dicaearchus. Dicaearchus of Messina(floruit) 320 B.C., was a disciple of Aristotle, who followed him in represent-ing the soul rather in the light of an abstraction that explains the behaviourof the body. Nevertheless, for Dicaearchus, although he represents thereaction from Plato's metaphysic, the soul was so far an actualized existentthat he claimed to prove it mortal.

11 The Manichaean religion developed out of the Mandaean religion ofPersia through contact with Christianity within the Roman empire. Itwas founded by a "prophet" called Mani whom the Persian king causedto be put to death in A.D. 277. But the religion rapidly spread both eastand west, becoming a competitor of Christianity in all parts of the empire,


there to be innumerable different kinds of soul, while somebelieve in one only soul-substance which is shared by manyactual souls.

There is therefore every reason why we must face a longdiscussion, since we have such a host of opinions to refute.

COMMENTARY

I i . The difficult subject of the nature of the soul has given rise todiverse opinions. In this chapter Nemesius attacks his most diffi-cult argument, concerning the nature of the soul. It was notdifficult for him to marshal an array of diverse opinions ofphilosophers, because a class of book was available, called aDoxography, which tabulated the notions of famous thinkersupon various subjects. From Thales to Aristotle, in this section,is practically identical with a passage of pseudo-Plutarch, Onthe opinions of the Philosophers, Bk. iv, ch. 2, while ch. 3 provides,almost word for word, what Nemesius says of Heraclitus.

But Nemesius could hardly head this chapter with the wordsOn the Soul without remembering that Aristotle had written atract in two books under that title. And in fact it meets the eyethat sections 11-14 stand related in some way to the work ofAristotle. Now the great philosopher begins his work On theSoul by explaining his own approach to the subject, and thengoes on, as in Nemesius' section 11, with a doxography, orsurvey of the opinions of philosophers of the past, on the subject.At two points, namely in mentioning Democritus and Critias,Nemesius practically reproduces the very words of the cor-responding mentions of these philosophers in Aristotle, while,with the exception of the mention of the Manichaeans, all ofthe rest of the section seems to be taken, if not quite exactly,from pseudo-Plutarch. Plutarch was a popular writer and en-

and this competition was reaching its zenith in the lifetime of Nemesius,who must have had first-hand knowledge of it. The Manichaeans supposedthe world to have resulted from an assault upon heaven made by thedemon of darkness, in the course of which particles of the heavenlysoul-substance became mingled with the gross material created by thepower of darkness. The souls of elect men were believed to be such heavenlyparticles of light, desirous of their redemption from imprisonment inmatter by means of knowledge, of heavenly aid, and of ascetic practices.Their salvation after death would be by their return and reabsorptioninto the heavenly world of light. Nemesius regards this doctrine as parallelto Greek notions of a single soul-substance parcelled out as a plurality ofindividual souls. See also note 50 to the Introduction to Cyril (p. 37)above.


cyclopaedist of the first century of our era, who still enjoyed avery great vogue in the fourth to fifth centuries. Our problemdoes not lie in the use Nemesius makes of pseudo-Plutarch, butin his use of Aristotle. Whatever might be the case with a manof learning, like Nemesius, the public for whom he wrote wouldno more have had first-hand knowledge of such an author asAristotle, except through commentaries, than modern visitorsto Canterbury would go to Chaucer's Canterbury Pilgrims exceptas mediated by modern writers. In like manner it is probable thatthe relation of our sections to the text of Aristotle, On the Soul,was mediated by some more recent Commentary on that work.

B. Domanski, Die Psychologie des Nemesius, pp. 1-3 (in Baumkerand Hertling's Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelal-ters) observes that Nemesius is unjust to Aristotle when he saysthat Aristotle held the soul "not to be a self-subsisting thing."In fact, Nemesius' own doctrine of the soul might fairly becharacterized as Aristotelian. In any case, it would be unlikeNemesius, with his apologetic aim, to air a novel and unfavour-able interpretation of the great philosopher, likely to rouse theopposition of his readers. We may assume that the view whichhe expresses was current in the Syria of his day, and we may goon to father it upon the Neo-Platonic school. Putting these factstogether, we may conclude that Nemesius, as he commencedthis chapter, had before his mind some recent Neo-Platoniccommentary on the work of Aristotle On the Soul. It might bethis commentary that drew upon pseudo-Plutarch.

There has survived a Neo-Platonic commentary on this workof Aristotle written a little before Nemesius. This is the work ofthe Constantinopolitan Neo-Platonist Themistius. It containspassages that come fairly near to Nemesius, but it does notexpress his critical view of Aristotle, and in other ways it isclear that it was not the document that stood between Nemesiusand the text of Aristotle. But the knowledge by Nemesius of awork in general character resembling Themistius, and assertingthe substantiality of the soul in a more polemical manner thanThemistius, would explain what we have before us. In the nextsection, further reasons will be found for holding to such ahypothesis.

TEXT[M.69. 12-76. 11.]

12. Now, as regards those who assign corporeity to the soul,it suffices to recall the argument of Ammonius, the master of


Plotinus, and of Numenius the Pythagoraean.1 It runs thus:bodies, by their absolute nature, are mutable, dissoluble, and,throughout their extent, divisible indefinitely, without there re-maining anything of body that is not thus liable to change.Therefore a body requires some principle keeping it together,assembling its constituents, and (so to express it) binding andholding them in union. And this principle we call soul.

But if the soul is, in any kind of way, corporeal, even thoughits body were of the most rarefied stuff, the question is, What isthe principle that holds it together? For it has been demon-strated that everything corporeal needs a principle of cohesion.And so the argument is carried back indefinitely, until we arriveat an incorporeal soul.2 Now, if anyone, one of the Stoics for

1 Ammonius Saccas was, according to Prof. E. Benz, probably an Indian(Ammonius the Sakka) who came to Alexandria about A.D. 225, and,without leaving any literary remains, started the eclectic, but thoroughlyHellenic, revival of philosophy known as Neo-Platonism, of which hispupil Plotinus (A.D. 205-270) was leading figure. The Neo-Platonistsowed much to the Neo-Pythagoraean Numenius, who flourished atApamea in Syria in the later second century A.D. The argument hereretailed by Nemesius was presumably developed by Numenius in criticismof the Stoics, and adopted from him by the Neo-Platonists.

2 The notion that living body must have an integrating principle leads toan absurdity if that principle is supposed to be itself corporeal. For acorporeal soul needs its own (corporeal) soul, and so on, ad infinitum,unless the series is broken by bringing in some incorporeal integratingprinciple. If that is ever to be done, why, Nemesius asks, should it notbe at the first stage, so that man's soul is held incorporeal? Nemesius, aswe see, attributes the argument to two people, the first of whom, Am-monius, left no writings, while the second, Numenius, is to be regardedas the next precursor of the Neo-Platonic movement which claimedAmmonius as its founder. The argument appears in the following formin a commentary to Aristotle, On the Soul by John Philoponus, Alexandrinechurchman and philosopher in the late sixth century: "Every body is,by its absolute nature, dissoluble and indefinitely divisible. Therefore itis in need of some principle holding it together. This thing keeping ittogether is either its soul or some other power, and is either corporealor incorporeal. If, then, it is corporeal, it will, in its turn, need somethingto hold it together. So we shall ask, once more, whether this is corporealor incorporeal, and so on indefinitely. It must surely be that the powerthat holds bodies together is incorporeal. Now the thing that holdstogether ensouled bodies is the soul." (Philoponus, edited by MichaelHayduck, Vol. xv of Greek Commentaries on Aristotle, p. 12, lines 28-32).This is not the only reminiscence of Nemesius in the work of Philoponus.Some have thought this was because Philoponus knew the work ofNemesius. But what Nemesius says shows that the argument was currentin Neo-Platonic circles (and probably current in writings) long beforethe days of Philoponus. It was therefore likely to have had a place incommentaries to Aristotle, On the soul. We have, therefore, further reason


example, retorts that there is something in bodies that movesthem and sets up a tension, that it is a movement inwards anda movement outwards, the movement outwards effecting sizeand quality and the movement inward giving the body its unityand identity,3 we must then ask them what is this force (sinceforce there must be, where any movement is caused) and inwhat has it its substance ? And if they will even have it that thisforce is material, we retrace our previous arguments. If, on theother hand, it is said not to be matter, but only to be connectedwith matter, then a distinction is drawn between what is con-nected with matter and matter itself. For, what plays any partin relation to matter may be said to be connected with matter.Which, then, is this something connected with matter? Is itmaterial or immaterial? If they answer, Material, how can it besomething connected with matter but not actually matter? Ifthey say that it is not matter, then, surely, it is immaterial; andif immaterial, then incorporeal, since any kind of body ismaterial. But suppose they say that bodies are three-dimen-sional, and that soul, since it pervades the whole body, must bethree-dimensional, also, and therefore must clearly be cor-poreal : we then reply that all bodies are, indeed, three-dimen-sional, but that everything extending in three dimensions is nottherefore body. For position and quality4 are, in themselves,incorporeal, and yet may be accounted the accidents of a solidbody. It is just the same, then, with the soul, which in its ownnature belongs to things that have not dimension, yet appearsitself to be three-dimensional, in being seen as an accident of thethree-dimensional body in which it is. Further, every body ismoved either from without or from within, and if only fromwithout, that body is inanimate. If, however, the body is movedfrom within, it is an animate body.5 But if the soul is corporeal,and is moved from without, it is inanimate, and if from within,it is animate. To call the soul either inanimate or animate isridiculous. Surely, therefore, the soul is incorporeal.

for thinking that Nemesius had before him a Neo-Platonic Commentaryto Aristotle, On the Soul.

3 The size and quality of a body are here thought of as obtruding themselvesupon the observer. This the Stoics attribute to a kind of outward thrustof the body towards the observer. And they attribute the fact that thebody does not disintegrate, but remains itself, to a kind of inward straintaking place in it.

4 An example of quality is colour. A solid white body is white in threedimensions. But whiteness is itself without dimension.

5 A maxim from Plato's Phaedrus.


Again, if the soul is nourished, its nourishment is incorporeal;for, the soul's nourishment is learning. No body is nourished byincorporeal nourishment; so, surely, once more, the soul is in-corporeal. This form of the argument is given by Xenocrates;6

if the soul is not nourished, but the body of every living creatureis nourished, the soul must be incorporeal. And this argumentrefutes the whole range of arguments in favour of the soul beingcorporeal. But a separate argument is called for to deal withthose who suppose that the soul is either blood or breath, be-cause a living creature dies when it loses its blood or breath.Yet this is what certain folk have written, who thought them-selves to be someone, but they had better been silent.7 On theirshowing, when some blood has been shed, some soul is lost,which is but idle talk. For what remains is everywise the sameas the homogenous matter that is gone. Water, for instance, iswater, whether in bulk or a drop; and likewise with gold orsilver or anything else of which the parts do not differ in sub-stance. So, then, if soul is blood, the blood that remains, what-ever the amount, is soul. Rather than say that soul is blood, weought to say that anything is soul the loss of which brings abouta living creature's death. So phlegm is soul, and bile and gallare soul, since the loss of a sufficient quantity of either bringslife to an end. On the same lines, the liver, the brain, the heart,kidneys, stomach and intestines might equally be taken to besoul; for of which of these can a living creature be deprived andnot die ? Or another argument is this: a lot of things withoutblood are animate, such as cartilaginous and jelly fish; forexample, squids, cuttlefish, stinking polypus, and all the testaceaand Crustacea, including lobsters, crabs, and oysters. So, if thereare animate things devoid of blood, it is clear that the soul is notblood.

Again, to those who say that the soul is water, because waterseems to promote all life, and it is impossible to propagate lifewithout water, there are many objections to be urged. Fornothing can live without food, and so, according to these folk,every single kind of food in turn should be identified with soul.6 Xenocrates of Chalcedon, born 396 B.C., may be called the literary

executor of Plato. Zeno and Epicurus are said to have heard him at Athens,but, so far from their learning from him the notion of a corporeal soul,he revived the Pythagoraean doctrine of the soul as number.

7 These persons can hardly have been Greeks. The sarcasm of Nemesiussuggests that they made some special claim for themselves. His attackmay be here directed against some oriental prophets or magicians whoseopinions were known in Syria.


And then there are many living creatures that do not drink, asis recorded of some of the eagles. Partridges also can live withoutdrinking.

And why should water be soul, rather than air? For we cango without water for quite a while, but cannot abstain frombreathing except for the shortest of periods. But neither is thesoul air; for there are many living creatures which do notbreathe air, for instance all insects, such as bees, wasps, andants, bloodless creatures and the myriad denizens of the sea,together with every creature that has no lungs. For nothingthat has no lungs breathes air, and, conversely, no creature thatbreathes no air has lungs.8

COMMENTARY

12. The soul is not corporeal; general arguments. In this sectionare reviewed two typical ancient approaches to the question ofthe soul. The first and more sophisticated rests upon observingthe disintegration of corpses. There must be, it was inferred,some vital force or principle that integrates and imparts motionto a living body. The soul was then identified with this force orprinciple, and its nature deduced. The cruder and more prim-itive approach identifies the soul with whatever is most funda-mental to life, such as blood or breath. Equally, Nemesiuscombats the view that the soul is an aetherial shape invisiblypervading the visible organism.

TEXT

[M.76. 11-82. 14.]13. As certain arguments of Cleanthes, the Stoic, and of

Chrysippus,1 are recorded, even though they are not wellreasoned, we ought to set out the answers which the Platonistsreturned to them. Cleanthes made up this syllogism: "Not onlydo we resemble our parents in feature," he said, "but also insoul, by our passions, manners, and dispositions. Now 'like' and'unlike' are applicable to bodies, but do not apply to the in-corporeal. The soul therefore is corporeal."

8 The obvious conclusion, which Nemesius does not explicitly draw, isthat the soul is not breath.

1 Cleanthes, 301-252 B.C., followed Zeno as leader of the philosophicschool in the Stoa at Athens. Chrysippus, 280-206 B.C., famous for hisdialectic skill, was pupil and successor to Cleanthes.


We must observe, first, however, that universals do not followthe same pattern as particulars.2 We must, further, object thatthe assertion "resemblance is inapplicable to the incorporeal"is not true. For we call such numbers similar of which the factorsare in the same proportion; for example, 6 and 24, since thefactors of 6 are 2 and 3, and the factors of 24 are 4 and 6. Twohas the same ratio to 4 as 3 has to 6, since each of the former isseen to be doubled in the latter, 4 being double 2, and 6 double3. Yet numbers are incorporeal. Shapes also are like othershapes, when their angles are the same, and the sides enclosingthese angles are in the same proportion. And the Stoics them-selves admit that shapes are not corporeal.

Once more, it belongs to quantity to be equal or unequal,and, likewise it belongs to quality to be like or unlike. Quality isnot corporeal. So it appears that one incorporeal thing canresemble another incorporeal thing.

Cleanthes' next argument runs thus: "an incorporeal thingcannot be affected by what happens to a body, or vice versa, butone body is affected by what happens to another body. It isevident, however, that when the body is sick or hurt, the soulsuffers with it; and, conversely, the body with the soul. For,when the soul feels shame, the body blushes, and when the soulfeels fear, the body blenches. Therefore, the soul is corporeal."One of his assumptions is false, to wit, that an incorporeal thingcannot be affected by what happens to a body. What if the soulis the exception to this rule ?

It is as if someone said, "No animal moves its upper jaw. Acrocodile moves its upper jaw. Ergo, a crocodile is not ananimal." The proposition is false, and thence comes the falseassumption that no animal moves its upper jaw. For, see! Thecrocodile both is an animal, and moves its upper jaw.3

Similarly, when Cleanthes argues that no incorporeal thingis affected by what happens to a body, he assumes the conclu-2 The first objection of Nemesius is that Cleanthes is basing upon the facts

of heredity a generalization which they are insufficient to support. Thischild is like its father in such and such particulars. That child resembles itsparent in such and such other respects. The most that that proves is thatsome children resemble their parents in some respects. To leap from theobservation "he has a disposition like his father's" to the conclusion"the soul of a child is like the soul of his father" is to make universalsfollow the pattern of particulars, and is unjustified. Thus both membersof the syllogism that Gleanthes constructed on the basis of human heredityare at fault, and its conclusion falls to the ground.

3 The logicians presumably derived the instance of the crocodile fromAristotle's Natural History, 1. 11.


sion in his premiss. But if anyone were to accept as true theproposition that no incorporeal thing is affected by what hap-pens to a body, he ought not, at the same time, to accept thesecond proposition of Cleanthes, that if the body is sick or hurt,the soul suffers with it. The question is whether the body is thesole sufferer, deriving perception from the soul while the soulremains itself impassible, or whether the soul suffers togetherwith the body. Most learned authors4 take the first alternative.Cleanthes ought to base his argument, not on what is in dispute,but only on what is agreed. It is abundantly clear that some in-corporeals do suffer with bodies, for the qualities of the body(which are incorporeal) are necessarily affected by changes inthe body; for they change concurrently as the body corrupts, asthey did when it was being conceived.

Chrysippus takes as his premiss that death is the severing ofsoul from body. Now no incorporeal thing, he says, can beseparated from a body. For an incorporeal thing cannot be con-nected with a body. But the soul is both connected with a bodyand separated from it. Ergo, the soul must be corporeal.

Now his major premiss, that death is the severing of soul frombody, is correct. But the generalization that an incorporealthing cannot be connected with a body is incorrect, eventhough it were true in its particular application to the soul. Itsfalsity as a generalization is shown by considering a geometricalline, which is incorporeal, and yet can be in connection withand in separation from a body.5 The same would be true, say,of whiteness. Nevertheless, it is true that soul is not thus relatedto body, for soul is not connected with body. If soul were con-nected with body, it must plainly extend throughout the samespace. If soul is corporeal, it cannot extend throughout thesame space, else there would be two bodies exactly occupyingthe same space, which is impossible; and so the body is not4 B. Domanski, op. cit.> p. 25, shows reasons for thinking that the indefinite

plural "most learned authors" really covers an allusion to Plotinus.Nemesius' point is that the argument of Cleanthes requires that sufferingis something in which soul and body participate on equal terms: so that,if that article is not conceded (and Plotinus does not concede it), neitheris the consequent conclusion.

5 A body has its particular geometrical configuration. Our geometricalline might either enter into this configuration or be entirely external to it.In the former alternative, it is "an incorporeal in connection with a body.""Whiteness," which Nemesius next mentions, in being a quality is in-corporeal, like the geometric line, and may be connected with a body,e.g., that of a snowman. Nemesius does not elaborate the argument inthis connection, but it is necessary for the understanding of what follows.


ensouled throughout. So we have the alternatives: either the soulis connected with the body and is corporeal, but the livingcreature is not ensouled throughout; or the living creature isensouled throughout, and then the soul is not connected withthe body, nor is it corporeal. Now a living creature is ensouledthroughout. Surely, then, soul is neither connected with thebody, nor corporeal, but is separated from the body, althoughincorporeal.6 So, from what we have said, it is established thatthe soul is not corporeal.

COMMENTARY

13. Stoic arguments for a corporeal soul refuted. I t is evidentthroughout this work that Christian faith and the belief thatthe soul is a real but incorporeal entity are, for Nemesius, veryintimately connected. Hence it was of the greatest consequenceto him to reach a decisive refutation of all Stoic argumentsfavourable to the corporeity of the soul. He was, however, farfrom being the first to take in hand such a task. H. Krause(Studia Neo-Platonica, Leipzig, 1904) suggests, very plausibly,that the work of Porphyry On miscellaneous questions, which isknown to have been a work of review and criticism of earlierphilosophies, supplied the model for the argument in this andthe next two sections. In favour of this suggestion is the fact thatNemesius explicitly makes a citation from this work in Section22, naming the second of its seven books as the place fromwhich it was taken. Also such a work would fit admirably theopening of this section, in which its contents are described assetting forth "the answers which the Platonists returned" to theStoic arguments. At any rate, we shall not credit Nemesius with

« The final argument is best illustrated by the example of whiteness. TheStoics thought of the connection of the soul with the body of a livingcreature as exactly like that of whiteness with the body of a snowman.Nemesius will allow the connection of whiteness with the body of asnowman, but not that of the soul with the body of a living creature.If it were allowed, he argues, then soul is spatial, and if spatial, thencorporeal. So, since the soul in being connected with the body is connectedwith all the body, the soul must be coextensive with the body. We thushave to choose between alternative absurdities. Either, the soul beingcorporeal, we have two bodies coinciding or filling entirely the same space,or, soul and body are mutually exclusive within the same boundaries(as if the fine atoms of soul pervaded the interstices between the coarseatoms of body), in which case the body is not ensouled throughout, norindeed at all. Q.E.A. The heart of the controversy is that Nemesiusbelieves the soul to be bound to the body not by spatial confinement butonly by imposed habit, as will appear later.


having excogitated this reply, but, at the most, with havingcollected it in the course of his philosophic reading.

TEXT

[M.82. 14-86. 11.]14. We have now to show that the soul is a real entity.1 For

Dicaearchus defines the soul as a state of harmony. Simmiasalso said that the soul was harmony, when arguing with Socra-tes, and added that, while the soul may be likened to harmony,the body may be likened to the lyre. The answers to this asser-tion are to be set forth as they are given in Plato's dialogueentitled Phaedo. The first, then, is dependent on something thatPlato had previously demonstrated, for previously he had shownthat things we suppose we learn, we really recollect. Takingthis, then, to be agreed, Plato constructs the argument as fol-lows: if what we learn, we really recollect, our soul pre-existed,before it took a human form. If soul is harmony, it had no priorexistence, but came into being subsequently, when the bodywas compacted. For no synthesis is otherwise than according tothe elements of which it is composed. And if the synthesis isharmony, there is a certain communion between the componentelements. But that is no argument against the synthesis beingsubsequent, and not prior to, the elements combined. There-fore, that "the soul is harmony" and that "learning is recollect-ing" are mutually exclusive doctrines. Now, it is true about therecollections. So, surely, it is false that the soul is harmony.Again, the soul stands in contrast with the body, and takes uponit the rights of a governor, as ruling the body. But harmonyneither governs, nor is in contrast. So, surely, soul is not har-mony. And again, one harmony is more harmonious, or less so,because of the slackening or tightening of strings, and not be-cause harmony is a comparative term. The notion of harmonycan know no more and less. That is all in the combining ofnotes. For, if a high note and a deep note mingle, and then goflat, the notes preserve the same relation as volumes of sound,but the harmony is modified, being more intense, or less so,according to the notes that combine to form it.

1 Literally "is not unsubstantial." Nemesius, in accusing Aristotle, Dicaear-chus, Galen, and Pythagoras, in Sections 11-17, of teaching that the soulis "unsubstantial," is more severe than Christian orthodoxy would require.Once more it is a Neo-Platonic source that is most likely to have set thestandard.


But one soul is not more a soul than another, nor less. Surely,then, the soul is not harmony.

Once more, the soul is receptive of virtue or vice. But har-mony is not receptive of harmony or discord. So, surely, thesoul is not harmony. And, finally, the soul, in being receptive ofa measure of things that are mutually contradictory, must be asubject or entity. But harmony is a quality, and needs a subject.Substance and quality are different things, and the soul andharmony are different things. However, there is nothing absurdin saying that the soul partakes harmony, and yet, for all that,is not harmony. For neither is the soul virtue, because it par-takes of virtue.

COMMENTARY

14. The soul is not "harmony," but has substance. In this section,Nemesius reproduces, loosely, the discussion between Socratesand Simmias, in chs. 36-41 of Plato's dialogue, Phaedo. Socrates,born about 470 B.C., was, in 399 B.C., accused, before theAthenian assembly, of dishonouring the deities recognized bythe State, and of corrupting the youth. The assembly con-demned him to death by a majority vote. The Phaedo depictshim, while awaiting death in prison, in converse with disciples.A slight readiness to compromise would save his life. So Sim-mias urges upon him the thought that the soul, with all itsinterest and knowledge, will disappear, at death, just as a tuneends, when the instrument is put down.

In the ensuing discussion, the dialogue represents the groupof companions as all agreed to Plato's root principle, that weare able to master knowledge at all because we are born with anendowment of knowledge, which discursive learning only de-velops, or, rather, revives. If so, the soul must be pre-existentbefore birth, and so may survive death. While Nemesius doesnot fully endorse the Platonic creed, he finds sufficient in thisdialogue to establish the point he requires, that the soul is notevanescent.

Simmias of Thebes was a historic personage, and himself theauthor of dialogues. In Plato's Crito he is represented as bringingmoney with which to buy the release of Socrates.


TEXT[M.86. 11-92. 11.]

15. Galen1 says nothing about the soul, and further in hisDemonstration2 declares that he has said nothing about it. Yet itmay be presumed, from what he does say, that he inclines toidentify the soul with temperament.3 For he says that differences

1 Claudius Galen (his name was Galenos, "the peaceful*') was born atPergamos in A.D. 131. After an eclectic training in philosophy, he studiedmedicine, and brought together all the best in the work of the Greekphysicians, while advancing knowledge very much by his own observationand dissections. His medical works, some fifty in number, became thestaple library for physicians for more than a thousand years. He practisedin Rome, and was appointed by Marcus Aurelius to be in medical chargeof his son Commodus. Galen died about A.D. 200.

2 Literally, "demonstrative reasons." Galen wrote a work entitled Ondemonstration, in five books, and it partly survives in Arabic fragments.From these, and from Galen's own frequent reference to this work, itwas evidently a treatise on the logical principles of proof. In Section 40,Nemesius refers to "the third book of the Demonstration." The contextshows, however, that this must be a slip, and that Nemesius really meantthe third book of the commentary by Galen on the Prognostic of Hippo-crates, as see C. G. Kuhn's edition of Galen, vol. xvniB, p. 286. (Leipzig,1821-33.) It is indeed altogether unlikely that the work On demonstrationshould be quoted in this work of Nemesius. But Domanski (op. cit,t p. 9,Note 1) observes that what Nemesius says in the first part of this sectionagrees admirably with the theme of the tract of Galen entitled "that thefaculties of the soul are affected by the temperament of the body."(Kuhn, iv. 767-822.) To this title there might well be prefixed the words"demonstrative reasons," so that the short citation became what might berendered into English by Demonstration. This tract argues first for themortality of that portion of the soul which is the seat of courage and desire.From this it goes on to make the irrational part of the soul mortal. It thenreviews what Plato, Aristotle, and Hippocrates have to say about theinfluence of temperament, blood, climate and age upon the functions ofthe soul; then the assertion of Andronicus the Peripatetic (Rome, firstcentury, B.C.) that temperament and life-energy are the substance of thesoul. At this point Galen dissociates himself from the view that the life-energy of the soul is mortal, stressing the difference between the rationaland irrational functions of the soul. So he rallies to the Platonic view,but says that he cannot prove Plato right, because he does not know ofwhat sort the substance of the soul should be. Nemesius' summary isnot unfair, and he only dissociates himself from Galen for his unwilling-ness to go further towards Plato. In this, of course, he would please a publicthat respected Neo-Platonism.

3 Temperament means, literally, "mixing." The mixing here meant is thatof the constituents of the body. It could be, as Nemesius here uses it, themingling of the four elements in the body, that is, of earth, air, fire andwater. But the physicians, when they spoke of temperament, had inmind "the four humours," blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile. A


of behaviour are consequent upon temperament, constructinghis argument with the help of Hippocrates.4 But if he thinksthat the soul is temperament, it is clear that he also thinks it tobe mortal. That statement does not apply, however, to thewhole soul, but only to the irrational soul, of man. About therational soul he is in doubt, and says . . .5

Now, that the temperament of the body cannot be the soul isclear from what follows.6 All bodies, animate or inanimate, con-sist of the four elements tempered together, for it is the temper-ing of the elements that constitutes such bodies. So, if thetemperament of a body is its soul, there is no such thing as aninanimate object. The argument runs thus: If the temperamentof a body is soul, and every body has temperament, every bodyhas soul. If every body has soul, there is no inanimate body, noteven a stone, a bit of wood, or iron, or anything else inanimate.Supposing, however, that he does not mean that every temper-ing of a body is soul, but only some particular kind of tempera-ment, we must ask, What sort of temperament is it which con-stitutes a living creature, and introduces the further principle of

temperament was the proportion in which these were mingled in theindividual concerned. They observed that a preponderance of one of thefour humours went with a characteristic temperament in the psychologicalsense. When blood was in excess, it went with a sanguine temperament,when phlegm predominated there was a phlegmatic temperament, whenyellow bile, a choleric, and when black bile, a melancholy temperament.

4 Hippocrates, "the father of medicine," born about 460 B.C., was a templeattendant at a shrine of Asclepios, the god of health. He studied philo-sophy, and conceived the notion that Nature is the principle of health.He taught that those who would practise medicine must "supportenfeebled and coerce outrageous Nature," especially by diet and regimen.Galen venerated the memory of Hippocrates, from whom he accepted thenotion of the four humours, of their eucrasia (ideal balance), and of theirdyscrasia (troublesome disproportion).

5 In all our MSS, at this point, what Galen said is missing. But if we acceptDomanski's identification of the Demonstration, we can fill in what isneeded. It is "I have no proof of Plato's teaching to contribute, sinceI do not know the substance of the soul, of what sort it is." It is very rarethat Nemesius transcribes a passage from a surviving work of Galen.He seems generally, when drawing upon Galen, to reproduce from memorythe gist of what he has read. But here it would appear that he wished togive Galen's exact words, and left a blank until he could look up thepassage. This he apparently never did. So we have a further reason forthinking that he died with his draft unrevised.

* Nemesius has admitted that Galen did not even identify animal soulwith temperament, still less the human soul in its completeness. Theargument that follows, in which Galen is refuted out of Galen, wouldseem, therefore, to be aimed at the materialistic physician who thinksof physical health as the sum of human hope.


soul? Whatever kind of temperament he says, we shall find alsoexemplified in inanimate objects. For there are nine tempera-ments, as he shows in his book On temperament.1 Eight are bad,and only one is wholesome. He says that man is constitutedaccording to the good temperament (not every man, that is, butmen of normal temperament), and that according to the otherbad temperaments, with varying degrees of ease or tension inthe tempering, are constituted the other kinds of living crea-tures. But, as Galen himself shows in his work On simplest thenine temperaments are also found in inanimate things.

Again, if the soul is temperament, and temperaments fluc-tuate with age, season, and diet, the soul fluctuates, too. And ifthe soul fluctuates, we have not always the same soul, but nowthe soul of a lion, and now of a sheep or of some other creature,according to our state of temperament; and that is absurd.Again, temperament is not antagonistic to the bodily lusts, butrather furthers them, for it is temperament itself that producesthem. But the soul opposes them. Surely, therefore, tempera-ment is not soul. Or again, if temperament is soul and tempera-ment is a quality, and if a quality can be present or absentwithout destruction of the subject, then surely the soul can besevered from the subject without it dying; and that is not thecase. Surely, then, the soul is not temperament, nor any quality.For people never say that either of two opposites is part ofthe nature of a living creature, in the way that heat is partof the nature of fire, seeing that that is unalterable. But tem-perament is seen to alter, and it is just these people thatpractise the physician's art who most cause change of tempera-ment.9

Once more, the qualities of any body are perceptible. Thesoul is not perceptible, but is intelligible. Surely, then, the soulis not a quality of body. And once again, the good tempering ofblood and breath with the neighbouring flesh, sinews, and otherthings, is strength. And the good tempering of hot and cold, ofdry and moist, is health. The symmetry of members, with good

i i. 8 (Kiihn, i. 559). Man the standard, 1. 9 (Kuhn, 1. 564).8 The full title is "On the mixing and powers of simple medicines." We

may gather this point from Book iv, chs. 16, 17 (Kuhn, xi. 675-9).9 The argument here is obscured by condensation. It may be paraphrased

thus: Temperament might be claimed to be something more profoundthan a quality, since there could no more be a body without temperamentthan fire without heat. But (as doctors ought to be the first to know)temperament can be changed. Therefore, temperament is no more thana quality, and therefore cannot be the soul.18—c.j.


complexion, makes physical beauty. If, therefore, the harmoni-ous concurrence of health, strength, and beauty, is soul, it wereimpossible for a living man to be sick, weak, or deformed. Butit often happens that not one only but all three of these goodtemperaments is lost, and yet the man lives. For it happens thatthe same man is deformed, weak, and sick, all together. Surely,therefore, the soul is not the good tempering of the body.

How is it, then, that certain vices and virtues come naturallyto men ? It is true that it proceeds from their bodily tempera-ment. For just as men are naturally healthy or sickly by tem-perament, so some are naturally choleric, some proud, somecraven, some lecherous. Nevertheless, some such persons masterthese tendencies, and prevail. Now, it is clear that they mastertemperament. And what masters and what is mastered aredifferent things. So temperament is one thing and soul another.For the body is the soul's instrument.10 If it is well constituted,it helps the soul, and is, itself, in good shape. But, if the body isnot well constituted, it impedes the soul, and then the soul needsto bestir itself to make head against the defects of its instrument.Moreover, unless the soul is watchful, it, too, is perverted, to-gether with its instrument, just as a musician is thrown out oftune through his lyre being out of tune, if he does not tune itwell before his performance. Therefore the soul needs to takecare of the body, and render it a fit instrument for its own use.And this it accomplishes by means of reason and manners, hereeasing and there tightening, as in harmony, to prepare itsinstrument well fitted to itself. And it will employ an instru-ment so fitted, lest it, too, be perverted in company with itsinstrument; as we often see happen.

COMMENTARY

15. The relation of soul to temperament, Nemesius now introducesthe author whose influence upon his anthropology exceeds allothers. This is Galen, "the father of Greek medicine." Medicinewas neither so specialized nor so technical as it is today. It wasviewed as a department of philosophy, and therefore as a sub-ject which concerned all men of culture. The voluminous works

10 In this conclusion, Nemesius gets things into their right order and pro-portion. Body is for the sake of soul. Temperament is for the sake of body.Therefore, the proper care of temperament (that is, the intelligent main-tenance of health, and the understanding of oneself) is a prime spiritualduty.


of Galen can be divided roughly into two groups. On the onehand are the treatises dealing with the art and science of thephysician. Of these the greater part have survived. But therewas also a number of works of ethical and logical philosophy,which have not fared so well in MS tradition. We should bewrong to suppose that because Nemesius had read extensivelyin both categories of Galen's writings he must have been apractitioner: though it would be a legitimate conjecture thathis interests (or alternatively, his family connections) had madehim unusually well-informed on medical subjects. In his repro-duction of the medical learning of Galen, his interest is alwaysthat of the non-technical thinker, who thinks of practitioners asa group to which he does not belong. He never records apersonal observation, or falls into a reminiscence betraying thepractitioner. Chrysostom's works contain passages showingknowledge of and interest in human anatomy and physiology.And he certainly was not a practitioner. We do best to concludethat, in the atmosphere of Syrian humanism in the days ofNemesius, Galen was widely read.

The nature and degree of Nemesius5 use of Galen is discussedby Professor E. Skard in his Nemesiosstudien n, m, iv and v(Symbolae Osloenses, Fasc. xvn, pp. 9-25; xvm, pp. 31-41; xx,pp. 46-56 and XXII, pp. 40-48). He finds signs that, even inch. 1, Nemesius has derived some of his matter from passages inworks of Galen. The wide reading of Nemesius in this author isnot to be severed from the conviction (which runs through thewhole of his work), so unique among early ecclesiasticalwriters, that the spiritual life of man is essentially conditionedby the body, with its functions and its limitations.

TEXT

[M.92. 11-102. 3.]16. In saying that the soul is entelechy,1 Aristotle agrees, no

less than does Galen, with those that make the soul a quality.

1 The word "entelechy" was invented by Aristotle, who formed it fromthree words meaning "to have in the end." It can perhaps be rendered"self-fulfilment" or "completion."

Aristotle started from investigable Nature, and found living creatureseach to be in the course of development through the working of powersresident in themselves. He saw this development as continuous alterationapproximating towards some conjectural goal. All of a living creaturethat can be actually known is its form, that is, the internal constitutionwhich makes it the creature it is. Shape is one, but only one of many,


So let us begin by making clear what Aristotle means byentelechy.

He uses the word "essence" in three senses: first for the basicmatter of which a thing is composed, which indeed has noexistence proper to itself, but contains the potentiality of whatthe thing may become;2 next for the fashion and form in whichthe matter of the thing is disposed; and thirdly for these twothings combined and combining what belongs to matter withwhat belongs to form. So, then, it is the essence of the thing inthis third sense that is ensouled.3 The potentiality resides,therefore, in the matter, and the entelechy in the form.4 Butform has two meanings: first it is the subject of knowledge, andthen it is the contemplation on our part whereby such know-ledge is gained; the first meaning, that is, pertains to it as being

among the constituents of form. While we can think of form as immanentin the thing, it is primarily something thought by us, however much wemay be caused to think it by the object itself. But recognizing form leavesus ignorant of trend. So entelechy is needed, to explain the history of theform of a living creature throughout its life. In as far as we can conceiveits entelechy we obtain our most significant understanding of the livingcreature. So, according to Aristotle, what we recognize in a living creatureis its form, and what we divine is its entelechy. The following illustrationhas been given of the relation between entelechy and form:

The form of a block of marble in a sculptor's work-room is whatdistinguishes it from, say, a block of ice. The statue carved out of it isits first entelechy. The sculptor's vision, and the art which actualizes itin marble, is the second entelechy. The concept of second entelechy liesnearer to that of soul than does that of first entelechy. To do Aristotlejustice we must recognize that he does not say that soul is nothing butentelechy. He only says that the concept of entelechy covers much of whatcan be scientifically apprehended about the soul of a living creature.

2 Aristotle saw the objective world through the data of sense-perception.These revealed a process of incessant change. Material objects are everbecoming what they were not. Even the four elements seemed to betransformable one into other. Aristotle was thus driven to think of ahypothetical something, which he called "matter," that now condenseditself and was earth, and now rarefied itself and was air. This "matter"he supposed to form a basis underlying every material being. Aristotlethought of "matter" as an inveterate "becomer," and source of theincessant change going on in the material universe. It had no characterof its own, but contained indefinite potentiality, upon which dependedentelechy, while entelechy expressed itself in terms of form.

3 Aristotle, therefore, did not think of soul as latent in matter, thoughNemesius tries to drive him into that position. His concept of soul asentelechy starts from that of the living creature as constituted of formand matter.

4 Form, in a living creature, changes with its development. Entelechy maybe called a function of this variable.


a particular disposition of matter, and the second as being anactivity.5 We say, then, that form is a subject of knowledgebecause, where there is soul, there are two states, sleep andwaking.6 Now what answers to waking is the activity of con-templation, while what answers to sleep is the mere storing ofknowledge without its active development. Of the two, know-ledge in active development takes precedence. And for thatreason Aristotle calls form the first entelechy, and the corre-sponding activity of mind the second entelechy.

To take an example, an eye consists of a basis and a form.The basis is the physical eye itself, and the form, to speakcorrectly, is the capacity for sight, which is what makes an eye.Derivatively, sight is called eye as well. Now the first entelechyof eye is its form, which is nothing else but sight providing theeye with its capacity for seeing, while the eye's activity of look-ing is its second entelechy. Whereas, then, a new-born puppylacks either entelechy, it has the potentiality of attaining it.Now this is how, says Aristotle, we should think of the soul. Foras sight, when it is begotten in the eye, completes the eye, so, inthe other case, when soul is ingendered in a body, it completesthe living creature; in such wise that there never was a timewhen the soul existed without the body, nor when the bodyexisted to the exclusion of soul. For the soul is not body, but isfrom body, for which reason it subsists embodied and in its ownparticular body. Soul does not exist by itself, Aristotle says.And he gives the name of soul first to the vital principle in thesoul, leaving its faculty of reason out of account. But one musttake the human soul whole and entire, and not make a partstand for the whole; least of all the feeblest part.7

To continue, however, Aristotle says that the body possessesthe potentiality of living, and does so before there is soul. For hedeclares that the potentiality of living resides in the body itself.But if the body contains within itself the capacity for living, itmust, before it receives life, be constituted a body; and it cannotbe constituted a body until it has been given form. For matter is

5 Form gains significance in the thinking mind as it is there, by the mind'sactivity, set in relation with the universe of knowledge.

6 Mind does not create form, which exists whether mind is active upon itor not.

7 Aristotle's biological approach to the concept of soul begins from whatNemesius calls the irrational part of the soul and looks upon as soul inits lowest terms. Nemesius will not, however, follow the Neo-Platonistsand sever mind from animal soul. He asserts the superiority of the rational,but insists on the soul's inclusive unity.


a mere indefinite and does not constitute body. Now it is amanifest impossibility that nonentity should be able to consti-tute itself something out of nothing. But even suppose matter tobe potentially body, how can merely potential body have in-herent in it the capacity for life ?

Or to take another point of view, one can, in general, possesssome capacity and yet make no use of it; for example, have sightand not use it. But the like does not apply in the case of soul. Forthe soul even of one sleeping is not inactive, seeing that he isdigesting and growing, dreaming and breathing, of which thelast is prime evidence that the person is alive. From these facts itis plain that one cannot have merely the capacity for living andnot be actively alive. For first and foremost it is life and nothingelse that constitutes the soul's form; since life pertains to thenature of soul, while it belongs to body only by participation.Therefore if anyone says that a person's health is in proportionto his life, he is not referring to life as it is in the soul, but tobodily vitality, and is quibbling. For it is in the nature of bodyto admit, in some ratio, conflicting qualities.8 But it is quiteotherwise with form. For if the distinctive form of a livingcreature were altered, it would not be the same living creatureany more; so that nothing can admit conflicting qualities astouching its form, but only as touching its basic substance orcorporeal being. This plainly proves that the soul cannot in anyway be the entelechy of the body. It must be something thatseeks a perfection of its own, apart from body. For the souladmits degrees of conflicting attributes, such as vice and virtue;and that is what form could not admit.9

But to proceed with Aristotle; he says that as the soul isentelechy it is, in its proper nature, an unmoved, and yet that,contingently, it is moved.10 Now there is nothing paradoxical inthe soul moving us while being itself unmoved. For beauty is an8 The body has a degree of health and a degree of ailment, and its vitality

is in proportion to its health. No such variation applies to life in the soul.9 Since entelechy resides in form, and form cannot admit conflicting

qualities, neither can entelechy. But soul can. Therefore soul cannot beentelechy.

10 An "unmoved" means an abstraction. When Aristotle is admitted tosay that the soul is moved contingently, it is plain that he did not reallyequate entelechy with the soul. The soul being moved contingentlymeans that it reacts to experience. From this point Nemesius sets out toshow that the soul, and not anything belonging to the world of matter,is the prime source of motion. The activity of man's soul works fromthoughts to incitements of the body. The transmission would be in thereverse direction if motion originated in matter.


unmoved that yet moves us. But if something that is unmovedimparts motion, of course a concrete thing of mobile nature im-parts motion. Suppose, then, that a living creature's body hadits own motion, still there would be no anomaly in its beingmoved by an unmoved. What is impossible is that an unmovedshould be moved by an unmoved.11 Whence, then, comes abody's motion if not from its soul ? For the body does not in factmove of itself. So Aristotle, in trying to point to the primarycause of motion, has really indicated the secondary cause andnot the primary. It is a primary cause of motion when an un-moved imparts motion; but if something that has been set inmotion, whether of itself or otherwise, imparts motion, we havemerely exposed a secondary source of motion.12 Whence, then,has the body its primary source of motion ? The assertion thatthe elements set themselves in motion by being some of themnaturally light and others heavy is false. For if lightness andheaviness create motion, the light and heavy things would nevercease moving; whereas they come to rest on reaching each itsproper place. Surely, then, heaviness and lightness are noprimary cause of motion, but mere qualities of the elements.But even if the origination of motion were conceded to them,how can lightness and heaviness give birth to deliberation, theforming of opinions, and the passing of judgements ? And ifthose are not the work of lightness and heaviness, neither arethey due to the elements; and if not to the elements, then not tobodies.

Once more, if the soul is only contingently moved, while forthe body to be moved is in its nature, it follows that when thereis no soul the body will be self-moving. And if so, we have a liv-ing creature without a soul, which is absurd. But the absurdityis latent, surely, in the first assumption.13 Nor is it truly said thateverything by nature mobile is likewise being moved by someapplication of force, or that anything in motion under appliedforce is naturally endowed with motion. For the universe is inmotion naturally, and not because of the application to it of any11 But beauty moves the soul. Therefore, since beauty is an unmoved, the

soul is not.12 Aristotle, observing the material order to be in motion, sought the cause

of motion in that order. Observing in particular the tendency of heavythings to move down and light things up, he gave the explanation that"the motion of a body to its own place is motion to its own form." So hefound the source of motion in the things themselves. The argument ofNemesius that now follows is intended to refute this.

13 That the soul is an "unmoved" or abstraction.


force.14 Nor, again, is it true that if any thing is naturally inmotion it must be its nature also to come to rest. For it is thenature of the universe and the sun and moon to be in motion,and equally it is their nature to be incapable of rest. Likewisealso the soul is by nature in perpetual motion, and its nature isincapable of rest, seeing that rest is destruction to the soul, as toany perpetual mover.

In addition to all these arguments we must note that Aristotleleaves unsolved the problem that faced us from the start,namely, what it is that holds the body together, despite itsnatural liability to disintegration. Nevertheless, the above argu-ments, taken from a wider field, suffice to show that the soul isneither entelechy, nor an unmoved, nor any by-product ofbody.

COMMENTARY

I 6. The Aristotelian doctrine of the soul. Nemesius now returns toAristotle, On the soul, to take his argument up at the beginningof Book ii. It helps us to follow Nemesius if we keep in mind hisown doctrine of the soul, that it is a self-subsisting rational livingcreature, ceaselessly in motion, the indispensable integrator of aliving body, implicated in the material universe, and yet nopart or product thereof. Nemesius criticizes not so much thereal Aristotle as a popular secularism which defended its dis-regard for the things of the soul by claiming the assent of a greatteacher of antiquity. Almost all that Nemesius says is as much tothe profit of Neo-Platonism as of Christianity, and he is likely toowe much of the structure of his argument to Neo-Platonistwriters.

TEXT[M.102. 3-110. 5.]

17. Pythagoras was accustomed always to represent God andall things by numerical symbols, and defined the soul as a self-moving number. Xenocrates took over this definition from him.l

It does not mean that the soul is literally a number, but that itis one of the things susceptible to numerical symbolism, and athing that involves the idea of increment. It means that it is the

*4 Nemesius, seeing that the Aristotelian doctrine that the "heavenlysphere" rotates perpetually by reason of the "Intelligences" played intohis hands, uses it to give the coup de grace to the theory that the source ofmotion is contained in matter.

1 See Section 11, note 7.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 28l

soul which makes distinctions between things, by assigning eachto its proper kind and character. For it is the soul that dis-tinguishes form from form, and pronounces them different bymeans of the contrast of one form with another, and the ratio ofthe corresponding numbers, representing everything mathe-matically.2 Wherefore the soul itself is not altogether to besevered from the notion of number. Pythagoras further testifiedthat the soul is self-moving.

Now, that the soul is not number is clear from the followingconsiderations: number is quantitative, and the soul, being sub-stance, is not; and the soul is surely not number, especially ifthey want to give number a place among the intelligibles, as weshall relate presently. Again, the soul has continuous existence,while number goes by jumps; so the soul cannot be number.Further, a number is either even or odd, but the soul is neither;3

so surely again the soul is not number. Again, a number is in-creased when another is added to it, but one cannot add some-thing to the soul to increase it. Again, the soul is self-moving,but a number is a finite unmoved. Again, while it is in the natureof a number to remain one and the same, and it cannot undergochange as touching any of the qualities appropriate to number,the soul, as touching its substance, remains one and the same,but, as touching its qualities, undergoes change, passing fromignorance to knowledge, and from vice to virtue. So, then,surely the soul is not number.

We have now reviewed the doctrines of the ancients concern-ing the soul. Eunomius4 defined the soul as an incorporeal being2 Pythagoras seems to have had an intuition of the importance of mathe-

matics to physics, of number to the universe. He saw the life of the humanbody as explicable in terms of the proportion in which its several ingred-ients are tempered, and supposed this to be in a measure imposed uponbody by soul. When this proportion is harmonious, there is health andgrowth for both body and soul, and when otherwise, loss and evil. Thedoctrine of transmigration of souls may have had its attraction forPythagoras because, as a soul changed numerically, it became unfittedfor its body and fitted for a different body. To things outside the body,the soul is like number in "sizing them up," and self-moving in imposingproportion within its body.

3 Since the Neo-Pythagoreans called masculine even and feminine odd,this is a denial that soul has sex.

4 Eunomius was born early in the fourth century of our era, near theborders of Gappadocia and Galatia. In A.D. 356 he became the discipleof Aetius, who was, at Antioch, launching a new version of Arianism,based on pure dialectic, and contemptuous of church tradition, and theyworked together there till 360. Later, Eunomius was for a while bishopof Cyzicus near Constantinople. In 382, he refused to conform, at the


created in body, an opinion that agrees at once with Plato andwith Aristotle. For Eunomius took "incorporeal being" fromPlato and "created in body" from Aristotle, not seeing, for allhis sharpness,5 that he is attempting to bring into agreementthings that are incompatible.6 For everything of which thegenesis is in body and time is corruptible and mortal. The wordsof Moses agree to these things. For, when describing the crea-tion of the sensible universe, he did not expressly say that thenature of the intelligibles was also established by that creation.Admittedly there are those who think so, but not everyoneagrees with them. It would be a perversion of the truth, how-ever, if one were to suppose that, because the soul was put intothe body after the body had been framed, therefore the soul wascreated after the body. Moses does not say that the soul wascreated at that moment at which it was put into the body, norwould it be reasonable to suppose it.7 Therefore, either letEunomius say the same as Aristotle, who declared the soul to bebegotten with the body, and as the Stoics, or, if he will have itthat the soul is incorporeal being, let him refuse to say that it iscreated in body, lest he present us with a notion of the soul asmortal and wholly irrational.8

order of Theodosius the Great, with orthodoxy as defined by the Councilof Constantinople, and was relegated to Cappadocia, where he spent hislast years in literary controversy with Basil the Great and Gregory ofNyssa.

5 A hit at the claim of Eunomius to prevail by dialectic.6 The orthodox opponents of Eunomius found him difficult to understand,

and Nemesius is evidently uncertain where he stands. The difficulty seemsto arise from the fact that Eunomius regarded creation as not instanta-neous but a process. Similarly he thought of the generation of the Wordas something which only came to completion when the Word becameSon (as he held) by incarnation, and so gave, for the first time the nameof Father to the eternal ingenerate God. Eunomius taught that the Wordbegan to create souls at the creation of the world. In that sense theypre-existed. But their creation only came to completion, in the view ofEunomius, as the body destined for each came to be conceived. When allthe elect souls created at the beginning have found their actuality inthis way, the purpose of the material world would have been served,and the world would come to an end.

7 The opinion of Nemesius is that the intelligibles, including the soul ofAdam, were created before the material universe.

8 There were three main views, in the early Church, about the origin ofthe soul. The first is traducianism, the belief that soul is born of the soulas body is of body, ex traduce, by a handing on of substance. The next iscreationism, which supposes that God, when a human body, under hisprovidence, begins to be conceived, creates the soul that is to ensoul thatbody. The third theory was that of pre-existence, according to which God


Or we may put the argument in another form. According toEunomius, the world is not yet full, but, to this day, is only half-full, while our race continues to be in need of additions. For atleast fifty thousand rational beings are added to it daily. But thehardest thing to accept is that, according to Eunomius, whenthis process has come to its destined conclusion, the universewill be dissolved in that very moment when the tale of humansouls is fulfilled with perfect men who are to rise again. Whatcould be more senseless than to say that the world will be de-stroyed in the moment of its completion ? It is exactly the way oftiny children who knock their sand-castles to pieces the momentthey have completed them!9

Another thing that might be said is that souls are not beingcreated now, but have been created beforehand for this mo-ment, so that no new being is added, nor anything besides whatalready existed, but simply that something already in existenceunder providence receives actualization. But no one could sayit if they knew how to distinguish creation from providence.For it is a work of providence to preserve the succession of cor-ruptible living creatures by means of procreation (I am exclud-ing, of course, those creatures that are bred of decay, since thereis again another providential way of securing their succession,which is decay itself). But the peculiar character of creation isthat it is production out of nothing. If, then, souls are pro-created, that is a work of providence, and they are corruptible,just like everything else that exists by racial succession.10 But if

created all souls at the beginning of the world, each to join its pre-destined body at the appointed time. The third view remained suspectfrom the time that the Church condemned the form of pre-existence-doctrine taught by Origen. The crux of creationism, as Nemesius seesit, was that the separate creation of each several soul at its own momentin time seemed to put God at the beck and call of human lust. To removethe origin of the soul from the time of begetting to the beginning of theworld softened, if it did not really overcome, this difficulty. That in asense, is what Eunomius did. Nemesius did it more definitely, adopting thedoctrine of Origen except for the prenatal fall of souls which Origen held.

9 The simile of play-sand is used against Eunomius also by Gregory ofNyssa. Gregory says that Eunomius heaps up words and calls it anargument, just as children say, this is my house, or anything else thatthey fancy, when they have just made a heap of sand. But Nemesiusmeans that God, according to Eunomius, builds a sand-castle whosegrains are human beings, and when the last man has entered the world,he will destroy the race, and the world in which it is a race.

10 Nemesius is guilty of the false argument, "Providence preserves thespecies. If, therefore, providence exists, there must be a species thatneeds preserving."


souls arrive out of non-existence, then creation is still going onin defiance of the word of Moses, that "God rested from all hisworks."11 Both alternatives are unacceptable, and souls are notcoming into existence at this moment. For the saying, "MyFather worketh"12 does not refer to creation but to providence.And that, indeed, is how Eunomius understands it.

The opinion of Apollinarius,13 on the other hand, was thatsouls are born of souls, just as bodies are born of bodies, becausethe soul of the first man comes down, with the bodily succession,to all his offspring. For Apollinarius denies either that soulspre-existed or that they are being created now. For, he argues,those who say that souls are being created now make God a"partaker with the adulterers,"14 seeing that from adulterousunions children are born. He adds that the saying, "God rested

11 Nemesius takes Gen. 2:2 to mean that, at the end of the seven days ofcreation, all that ever was to be created was created. Eunomius took itto prove that creation is a process, seeing that the sabbath, which com-memorates creation, is not kept on the first day of the week (when creationbegan) but on the last (when it was completed). Similarly, what receivedits creation in the seven days would not have its completion till the endof the world.

12 John 5:17. This presented a problem to Eunomius, who resolved it bysaying that it meant the Holy Spirit, whom the Ingenerate put forththrough the Word before the incarnation, to be the Word's fellow-worker.When the Word was incarnate as Jesus Christ, he honoured the Ingenerateby attributing to him the work of the Spirit.

13 Apollinarius taught uncompromisingly that the Word took flesh, withits animal faculties, but did not take a human soul. He said this in theinterests of a Nicene theology, holding it possible for a co-equal Son ofGod to take flesh, but not conceivable that he should unite to himselfa human soul. Nemesius sees that this refusal was due to a low view ofthe soul and supposes this to be inevitable, where traducianism is held.But Gregory of Nyssa was traducianist, too; and therefore had no quarrelwith Apollinarius on that score. It may be from the Demonstration of thedivine Incarnation, once more, that Nemesius gained his information on thedoctrine of Apollinarius, though other possibilities are obvious.

14 The Greek words used by Nemesius do not imply any allusion to Ps. 50:18(LXX. 49:18). He is simply accepting the argument of Apollinariusagainst pure creationism, the point of which is that, if a child is born ofan adulterous union, God, on a creationist view, condones the crime bygiving the criminals the reward for which they committed it. There is,however, nothing that really would remove this difficulty except thatadulterous unions should never be fruitful. Nemesius ignores the scripturalanswer given by II Sam. 12:15-25, and wrongly treats Solomon as thechild of adultery. He seems to think that if providence allows a pre-existing soul to take advantage of an adulterous conception to enter theworld, the moral holiness of God is not affected, as it would be on thecreationist supposition.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN

from all his works that he began to make" is false, if he is stillcreating souls.

We reply to him that all things which depend upon successiveprocreation for their existence are thereby shown to be mortal.For that is the reason that they beget and are begotten, namelythat a race of corruptible creatures may be preserved. So itmust be either the one thing or the other, that the soul is mortaland ex traduce, or that souls are not being begotten, soul fromsoul, in succession. Let us leave the case of children begotten inadultery to be justified by providence, whose ways we do notknow. And if one must even make a guess about providence, itis that a child born of adultery is one that God surely knowswill serve either his generation or God himself, and he thereforeallows the ensouling to take place. Of this we may take Solomon,the son begotten by David of Uriah's wife, as sufficient assur-ance.

COMMENTARY

I 7. Further refutation of heterodox ideas on the soul. Nemesiusbegins the section with a favourable account of the doctrine ofPythagoras on the soul, followed by a group of argumentsagainst it, the force of which is largely nullified by what goesbefore. In the course of these arguments he promises to dealwith the Pythagorean assertion that number is an intelligible.He does not fulfil this promise, and there is no obvious reasonwhy he should. We may suspect that the promise belongs to theauthor of the set of arguments, whom we must suppose otherthan the author of the favourable review of Pythagoreanismwhich precedes it. In short, Nemesius seems to have made upthis part of the section by drawing on two works. The firstmight be Neo-Platonist. The Neo-Platonists were, in manyways, successors to the Neo-Pythagoreans of the first andsecond Christian centuries, with Numenius in the third as lastrepresentative. The set of contrary arguments, on the otherhand, seem directed against a superstitious and popular de-velopment of Neo-Pythagoreanism. When Nemesius passesfrom Pythagoras to two Christian heretics who were his eldercontemporaries, and cut a figure in the life of Syria that madethem known far beyond the pale of the Church, his ownpersonal interest can be clearly discerned. He had seen theNicene cause triumph in Syria against Arianism, the heresythat there is only one eternal divine Person, who, when hechose, brought into being Son and Spirit. While Eunomius gave


new life to Arianism, Apollinarius opposed it. Both Arianismand Apollinarianism equally outraged the dearest convictionof the Syrians, that the incarnate Son was complete in humansoul. This passage of Nemesius is of value in showing thatEunomius broke away from other Arians, in adopting a view ofthe soul which would leave open the question of a human soul inChrist. A side aim of Nemesius, in writing his book, was, nodoubt, to support the orthodox Syrian view against the heresies.The paragraphs on Pythagoras, on the other hand, would seemto be aimed at little more than giving his work a comprehensiveappearance.

TEXT[ M . I I O . 5-118. 7.]

18. Next let us go on to review the opinion concerning thesoul held by the Manichaeans.1 For they indeed say that thesoul is immortal and incorporeal, adding that there is but onesingle soul for the whole world, which is subdivided andparcelled out to particular bodies, whether those bodies be in-animate or ensouled. Some, to wit ensouled beings, receivemore, and some, inanimates, receive less, while much the mostpart of all resides in heaven. In this wise the portions of theuniversal soul constitute particular souls. Now if the Man-ichaeans simply said that the soul of the world was indivisiblyparticipated, as sound is among hearers, their error would notbe gross. But in fact they assert that the soul-substance is dividedup. And the worst thing of all is that they would have us believethe soul-substance to be literally mingled with the elements,and that, when bodies are generated, the portion of soul forthem is separated off, together with those elements; finally, thatwhen in course of time the bodies disintegrate, their portion ofsoul rejoins the soul mingled in the elements, just as a separatecupful of water eventually returns to be mingled with all therest. They say that pure souls depart to the light, as being them-selves luminous, but that the souls that have defiled themselveswith matter go back into the elements, whence, once more, theyare separated off to go into plants and animals. Thus they make1 Nemesius must certainly have had a first-hand interest in the doctrine

of the Manichaeans, which was a strong competitor of Catholicism inhis day. It was also a hated rival in the eyes of the Neo-Platonists. Thesummary of the doctrine, and the retailing and refutation of one of thearguments of the Manichaeans which Nemesius here gives is unique.There is also a strong probability that it was attained by the use ofNeo-Platonic sources.


the soul immortal at the expense of parcelling out its substance,representing it as corporeal, and subjecting it to passions. Andin doing so, they fall into various contradictions. For first theyassert that defiled souls go back into the elements and theremingle with other souls, and then they turn round and say thatdefiled souls are punished in proportion to their offences bytransmigrations, thus, in effect, collecting them back out of dis-persion and restoring to them their several individualities. For(say they) when it is light, shadows are given each its separateindividuality, but when the sky darkens the shadows mingleinto one; quite an improper simile to apply to things belongingto the intelligible order. For if it be granted that shadows can beseparated and then mingled together in one, it remains thatshadows are things cast by sensible objects.

Plato also asserts that there is one soul and many souls, theone soul being the soul of the universe2 and the others being thesouls of particular things; so that the universe is ensouled in itsown way, and particular things are severally animated by soulsof their own. And Plato says that the world-soul stretches all theway from the centre of the earth to the furthest confines of theheavens, though he does not use the word "stretch" in a spatialbut in a notional sense. It is this soul, he says, that causes theuniverse to be spherical in form, and holds together and com-pacts (as one might say) the world's body. For it was shown inwhat has gone before that bodies need something to hold themtogether, and that the soul does this by imparting form to them.For each thing that exists enjoys its own life, and suffers itsappropriate form of dissolution. For so long as the body is heldand bound together, we call it a body, but when it disintegrates,the body is said to be destroyed. Everything lives, indeed, butnot everything is a living creature. For the Platonists distinguishplants from inanimates by their growing and being nourished,that is, by their possession of the nutritive and vegetativefaculties. They distinguish irrational beasts from plants by theirhaving perception, and rational beings from irrational beastsby their possession of reason. So when Platonists say that every-thing lives, they must go on to distinguish degrees of living. Thelife they must allot to inanimate things is simply continuedidentity, wherein they are held together by the world-soul, sothat they subsist and do not dissolve. For they say that it is theworld-soul that guides the universe on its way, and assigns2 The Platonic doctrine of the world-soul here in view is that of the

Timaeus, ch. vin.


particular souls already formed by the Creator to their bodies;which is to say that the Creator himself gave the world-soullaws in accordance with which the universe must be carried on(which laws Plato also calls "destiny") and supplies sufficientpower for the world-soul to carry us along. These matters willbe treated further in the chapter on Destiny.

All Greeks, then, who represent the soul as immortal agree inbelieving in transmigration.3 Where they differ is as to theforms of souls. For some say that there is but one form, ration-ality,4 and that this form passes into vegetable and animal em-bodiment. Of these thinkers there are some who hold that thishappens at stated periods of time, and others who hold that ithappens fortuitously. There are others who do not allow that allsouls have one form, but divide souls under the two forms ofrational and irrational. Others again say that there are manysoul-forms; in fact, as many as there are forms of living crea-tures. The Platonists were particularly divided on this point.For Plato said that wrathful, proud, and grasping souls ex-change bodies with wolves and lions, and that those who haverun to excesses will receive the bodies of donkeys and otheranimals of that sort. Some took him to mean literal wolves, lions,and donkeys, and others thought that they discerned that hespoke in parables, and by naming animals alluded to mannersof behaving. For Cronius,5 for example, in his work On re-generation (for that is the term that he uses instead of trans-migration) will have it that souls always remain rational. The

3 The doctrine of transmigration is that when a soul leaves a body itbecomes reincarnate in another body newly conceived, whether of thesame kind or of a different kind.

4 Form here means not shape or description but basic principle. So thethinkers in question suppose that wherever there is soul, there rationalityis in some way coming to expression. Thus, if a sunflower turns its faceto the sun, rationality is exemplified in a vegetable context, and we havea manifestation of soul in plant embodiment.

5 Cronius was a Pythagorean who lived in the second century of our era,and was commented by Plotinus. Theodore the Platonist probablybelongs to the same philosophical movement as Cronius and Numenius,but nothing certain is known of him. Porphyry of Tyre, A.D. 233-304,became the pupil of Plotinus in Rome in A.D. 262. He edited his master'swritings under the title of Enneads. Porphyry was a bitter opponent ofChristianity. There is, however, no proof of the assertion, repeatedlymade, that he had once been a Christian. And Eusebius, in his Preparationfor the Gospel, calls him "a genuine philosopher, an admirable theologian,and a prophet of things ineffable." Iamblichus, a Syrian, and the prin-cipal pupil of Porphyry, was the author of a collection of writings underthe title Summary of Pythagorean Doctrine. He died about A.D. 330.


same view is taken by Theodore the Platonist, in The soul isomniform. Porphyry follows suit. But Iamblichus goes clean theother way, and declares that there is a form of soul appropriateto each form of living creature, and that these forms differ fromone-another. He accordingly wrote a monograph in which heargued that there is no transmigration of souls from men intoirrational beasts, nor from beasts into men, but only from onebeast into another, and from one human being into another.And it seems to me that, for this reason, Iamblichus, more thanall the others, both hit upon Plato's meaning and lighted on thetruth itself.6 This stands to be established by many and differentproofs, but particularly by those now to follow.

COMMENTARY

18. The world-soul and transmigration of souls. The order inwhich Section n deals with opinions on the soul has beenfollowed in the next sections, which treat the same subjects inextenso. And, with Section 18, we come to the last subject ofSection n , namely the opinion that, over against individualsouls, there exists some universal soul or soul-substance. Thissubject is treated first as it appears in the doctrine of theManichaeans, according to which one soul-substance, whileessentially belonging to heaven, has been drawn down into theworld of matter, and is now in process of redemption from theevil that is in matter, by means of the temporary existences ofindividual souls. In the second place this section reviews thePlatonic doctrine of the world-soul, its relation to individualsouls, and the Platonic and Neo-Platonic doctrines of the trans-migration of souls.

TEXT

[ M . I 18. 7-125. 7.]19. We do not see any of the rational activities in the be-

haviour of the irrational animals. For neither arts, learning,counsel, virtues, or any other intellectual pursuits are to be seenin them. And from this it is plain that they are not endowed

6 This appraisal of Iamblichus is more likely to be the opinion of someNeo-Platonist upon whom Nemesius is drawing than that of the Christianapologist himself. Nemesius might express agreement with Iamblichus,but the Neo-Platonist interest betrays itself in vindicating his right to bethe interpreter of Plato. In this setting of Plato and truth side by side,Skard sees an allusion to the proverb known to us in the form, AmicusPlato, magis arnica veritas. (Symbolae Osloensesy Fasc. xxn. p . 40.)

19—c.j.

2gO NEMESIUS OF EMESA

with a rational soul. Indeed it is absurd to speak of reason inconnection with the irrational animals. For although it is truethat only the animal propensities are present in new-bornbabies, we nevertheless credit them with the possession of arational soul, forasmuch as in fact they exhibit rational ac-tivities as they grow up. But your irrational animal does notmanifest rationality at any age. It would be superfluous for it tohave a rational soul, seeing that its rational powers are bound tobe for ever useless. Now it is generally agreed that God has madeno superfluous creature. Admit that, and then observe howsuperfluous a work it would be to put a rational soul in cattle orwild beasts, seeing that it would never have opportunity toexercise its proper function. It would, moreover, be blame-worthy in a Creator to give to a body a soul unsuited to it; for todo such a thing would not be workmanlike or show any sense oforder or harmony.

Suppose, however, that someone urges that animals in theirinward disposition have rational impulses, but that their phys-ical shape does not lend itself to the practice of the arts, theargument being based on the fact that men have but to lose thefingers of their hands and they are no more use for most of thearts. That, however, does not settle the question. For there stillremains the absurdity with which we began, of God implantingin a body a soul that is no help to it, a soul superfluous, foolish,ineffectual, a soul that hinders the proper activity of the body atany stage of its life. And to this we must add that the assertionthat animals have rational impulses rests on dubious grounds,upon which there is no general agreement. For whence is itproved that animals in their inward disposition have rationalimpulses ? It is better, therefore, to assume that in each kind ofbody there is implanted a soul serviceable to it, and that, as re-gards their inward disposition, animals have nothing more thanthe natural simplicity that is manifest in their actions. For eachkind of irrational creature is moved by its own characteristicimpulse towards that advantage or that activity which wasappropriate to it from the beginning. And for these things thecreature had also a suitably shaped structure. Certainly theCreator did not leave the animals without succour, but pro-vided each kind with its instinctive (not rational) intelligence.In some, indeed, he implanted a degree of cunning that mimicsart and counterfeits reason. And this he did for two ends. Thefirst was to make them avoid immediate snares, and to guardthem from those with which they may meet in the future. And


the second was to bind together the whole creation in the waywe have already described.1

That the explanation of animal cunning is not their possessionof reason is evident from the fact that each animal of a par-ticular kind does the same things in the same way, that animalbehaviour does not vary in the whole range of individuals (ex-cept that in some it may be more marked, and in others less)and that the whole of a kind of animal is moved by a singleimpulse. Every hare has the same way of doubling, every fox thesame kind of craftiness, every monkey the same sort of mimicry.And that is not how man behaves. There are a thousand waysin which men may act. For reason being unconstrained andself-determining, it follows that there is not one and the samething that all men do, in the way that there is for each par-ticular kind of irrational animal. Animals are moved in accord-ance with natural instinct only, and what nature dictates is thesame for every individual of a kind. But rational behaviourdiffers from individual to individual, and is not inevitably thesame for all. To say that human souls are sent down into thebodies of this or that kind of animal in punishment for the sinsof a previous human life is proving the argument from the con-clusion. How came rational souls to be sent into the bodies ofthe first created animals ? It could not be because of havingsinned in human bodies before there were any human bodies tosin in!2

Probably Galen, that most admirable of physicians, took ourview, and held that every different kind of animal has a form ofsoul appropriate to it. For at the very beginning of the first bookof his tractate On the use of the parts {of the human body) he says, "Ifthis be true, then animals have many parts, some of them beingmain members, some lesser members, and some so small as tobe irreducible to smaller components. And that which makesuse of every part is the soul. For the body is the instrument ofthe soul, and the reason that the parts of different animals weremade so very different is that their souls are different."3 A little

1 See Section 3. The mock-rationality of the higher animals is a step in therising order of intelligence, and a link in the ascending continuum ofsensible creation.

2 Nemesius tacitly assumes the Genesis account of creation, where allanimals were created before man.

3 The end of ch. 1 and the beginning of ch. 2, Bk. 1 (Teubner edn., by G.Helmreich, vol. 1, p. 1, Leipsig, 1907). The citation follows the openingdefinition of a member of an integral body. In Matthaei's text of Nemesiusthe second set of inverted commas are out of place.


later in the same book, again, Galen speaks addressing the apeand says, "Now, you clever little tease, Nature might retort toyou that a ridiculous soul must needs be given to furnish thebody of a ridiculous animal."4

If we have now proved that the soul is not body, nor har-mony, nor temperament, nor any other quality, we are clearlyleft with a single possibility, namely, that it is incorporeal being.For everyone agrees on the soul's existence. And if it is not body,nor accident, clearly it must be not any of those things that de-pend for their existence on something else, but an incorporealbeing. For those other things can come and go without affectingthe thing which they need for their existence. But when the souldeparts from the body, the body breaks up completely.

We can borrow the same arguments to prove the soul im-mortal. For if it is not a body (which has been shown to be liableby its nature to disintegrate and become corrupt) nor quality,quantity, or any other of the things that can be annulled, itplainly is immortal.

There are numerous proofs of the soul's immortality offeredby Plato and others, but they are difficult and full of obscurities,and can scarcely be understood by those who have been broughtup to such studies. But for us the sufficient demonstration of thesoul's immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which isself-authenticating because inspired of God.5

To those who, on the other hand, do not accept the ChristianScriptures, it is enough to point out that the soul is not any ofthe things that are subject to destruction. And if it is not one ofthese it is indestructible. Enough has been said, and we shouldnow pass on.

COMMENTARY

19. Not all souls are rational, but all are incorporeal and immortal.By bringing the course of Section 18 back to the Platonic doc-trine of the soul, Nemesius has prepared for the conclusion to hischapter on the soul. He answers the question whether the soulhas one form or many by arguing that the form of the souls ofanimals does not involve rationality. The argument has been4 Bk. 1, ch. 22. (Edn. cited, p. 59.) The importance of fingers has led up to

the fingers of monkeys, and their laughable resemblance to man, in allrespects. "Tease," literally "accuser," in the sense of one who shows youwhat you have done, a mimic or "take-off."

5 It would be interesting to know how Nemesius deduced from Scripturethe doctrine of unconditional immortality in which he believes. He is aprecursor of the schoolmen in thinking thus.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 2Q3

the subject of two studies, the first by M. Pohlenz (Hermes,LXXVI, 1-13, Berlin, 1941) entitled "Tierische und menschlicheIntelligenz bei Poseidonios," and the second by E. Skard (Sym-bolae Osloenses, Fasc. xxn, 40-48, Oslo, 1942) in the fifth of hisJVemesiosstudien, "Galens Lehre von tierischer und menschlicherIntelligenz." Pohlenz thinks that the opening of the sectiontakes up the argument of Iamblichus, and that the theme isPosidonian. Skard shows that the structure of the section re-flects Galen most closely all through, and not only after the ac-knowledgement by Nemesius of his debt to his favourite author.The subject of animal intelligence was much canvassed (e.g., byPlutarch and Aelian), and might reach Nemesius by manyroutes; including the doctrine of Posidonius that animal intelli-gence is instinctive and not rational. Nemesius might start withthe argument of Iamblichus, as given by his Neo-Platonicsource, and develop it under the guidance of his great know-ledge of the works of Galen.

Nemesius concludes that soul, in all its forms, is incorporealand therefore "indestructible" being. His interest, however, isonly in the rational human soul. But his argument has estab-lished the principle that a human body must be the fit habita-tion for a human soul, so that the study of the nature of man isthe study of soul in union with body.

I I I . Of the union of soul with body

TEXT

20. Our next subject of enquiry concerns the manner of unionbetween soul, on the one hand, and body as it is apart fromsoul, on the other. It is a subject enveloped in uncertainties.And if, as some will have it, man consists not only of soul andbody but also of mind, the subject is more puzzling still. Andwhen some would even add to man a fourth constituent, theymake the problem frankly insoluble.1 For all that comes to-

1 The reference is probably to some of the Apollinarians. Apollinariushimself was trichotomist. That is, he distinguished three elements in man,distinguishing soul, conceived as the seat of the passions and the recipientof sense impressions, from the mind. In this, Nemesius (Section 1)charges Apollinarius with being a follower of the Neo-Platonists. Nemesiusis, of course, a stout upholder of the unity of the soul, and he probablydoes less than justice to either Apollinarius or Plotinus when he accusesthem of destroying that unity. Certainly, both laid emphasis upon thedifference between the soul in its higher activity of thinking, reasoningand contemplation, and the soul in its lower activity of sense-perception


gether to make one single being is made in all ways one, but inbeing thus united the constituents all undergo change, and nolonger remain what each was in isolation, as will be shown inour chapter on the four elements.2 For things that have under-gone union with other things become different. How is it pos-sible, then, on the one hand, for body to be united to soul with-out losing corporeity, or, on the other hand, how is it possiblefor soul, being incorporeal and self-subsistent, to be joined tobody, and become part of a living creature, still keeping distinctand uncorrupted its own entity ? We have but two alternatives.Either, when soul and body are united, they are changed bothtogether, and die away into each other, as the elements do, or(since such suppositions are absurd), soul and body are, in fact,not really united, but merely in juxtaposition; as it were, likepartners in a dance, or one counter added to another; or theyare mixed, like wine and water. But we saw, in the last chapter,3

that soul is not in juxtaposition with its body, for, otherwise,only that part of the body would be alive that was in proximityto the soul, and that part that was out of contact with the soulwould be lifeless. Furthermore, it cannot be said that thingswhich are in contact are therefore in union; to take an example,bits of wood placed in contact are not thereby united, nor bitsof iron, or anything of that sort. The mixing of wine and waterdestroys the nature of both together. The mixture is neitherclean water, nor is it wine. Though such mixture is by juxta-position, the senses cannot perceive it, because the particles ofthe mingled liquids are too tiny. But that these particles are injuxtaposition is plain, because, for sure, the two liquids can beseparated again, by employing an oiled sponge or a piece ofpaper to draw the water up clean. Things truly united couldnot possibly be separated, thus perceptibly.4

and the maintenance of animal life. Apollinarius and his first followersaccepted a trichotomy of body, animal soul, and mind, equating mindwith spirit, as spirit is used in the vocabulary of Paul. There was adifficulty, however, in maintaining this equation, occasioned by I Cor.14:15, where mind is contrasted with spirit. This seems to have drivensome later Apollinarians to adopt the fourfold division of man into body,soul, mind, and spirit. These will be the people who, according to Neme-sius, render the problem of man's unity insoluble. The other Apollinariansare stigmatized as making the problem unnecessarily difficult.

2 Gh. v, below. 3 Section 13.4 By the wine-and-water experiment, Nemesius has, in addition to con-

fused union and mere juxtaposition, ruled out union by mixture. BishopFell points out that the experiment is not as successful as Nemesiussuggests. The capillary attraction in the sponge or paper raises pure


If, therefore, we must rule out union, juxtaposition, or mix-ture, in what manner can we say that a living creature is aunity? This was the perplexing question that made Plato un-willing to say that a living creature consists of soul and body,and define it as a soul using a body, or figuratively putting on abody.5 But this definition raises its own difficulties. For how canthe soul be one with the body it has put on ? When a coat is puton, coat and wearer do not thereby become united. However,Ammonius, the master of Plotinus, solved the problem thus.6

He said that it is in the nature of intelligibles both to be capableof union with things adapted to receive them, just as much as ifthey were things that would perish with them, and to remain,nevertheless, unconfused with them while in union, and im-perishable, just as though they were merely juxtaposed. For, theunion of bodies always involves some alteration in them as theyenter into union, even, possibly, a being transformed into otherbodies, as in the case of elements entering into compounds, foodturning into blood, or blood turning into flesh or into otherparts of the body. In the case of intelligibles, on the other hand,union takes place, and yet no change in them results. For anintelligible being is essentially such as not to suffer alteration.The alternatives are for it to withdraw from the union, or tosuffer annihilation. An intelligible will not suffer transforma-tion. Now, an intelligible cannot be annihilated, for if it could,it would not be immortal. And, as the soul is life, if it werealtered through mingling with the body, it would become some-thing different, and would not be life any more. What thenwould it contribute to the body, if it did not endow it withlife?

Surely, then, the soul suffers no change, as the result of unionwith body. And if we may assume it proved that intelligiblescannot suffer any change of being, it follows of necessity that

water, ahead of wine, and thus makes a beginning of separation, verysoon arrested. Fell says, however, that, with the help of a retort, theseparation can be completed, and that is enough to justify the argumentwhich Nemesius bases on the experiment. Needless to say, Nemesius didnot invent the experiment. Domanski points out that Stobaeus appearsto attribute it to Chrysippus.

5 These phrases, which Nemesius attributes to Plato, appear to belong toPlotinus and Porphyry respectively.

6 This is the second mention by Nemesius of an opinion of Ammonius. Wemust suppose that he was drawing upon some work lost to us. And as,in Section 12, Ammonius is bracketed with Numenius in regard to hisopinion, it is possible that the work in question was a Neo-Platonistdoxography.


when intelligibles are in union with bodies, they do not perish incompany with those bodies.

COMMENTARY

20. Soul remains soul, though in union with body. In this thirdchapter, Nemesius attacks the problem of the union of soul andbody. He is at a great advantage, in this, through having estab-lished, in the previous chapter, his Neo-Platonized Aristotelianpsychology, in which was vindicated the claim of the humanmind to be a denizen of two worlds at once. Plato, by his recol-lection-theory, made man's mind an exile from the intelligibleworld in the world of sense. But the theory of Aristotle was thatman's mind, by a faculty or power inherent in it, discovers in-telligibility in sense-perceived objects, so as to be able to relatethem to universal reality. Not that mind invests an object withintelligibility, which, indeed, it possesses in its own right, butthat it finds in it so much that is intelligible as is commensuratewith its own powers of understanding. This is to make mindequipped for life in this world. But the Neo-Platonist revision ofthe doctrine of Aristotle restores the balance in favour of theintelligible world, as that which is the true home of mind. Andthis confers upon the concept of the soul an otherness in relationto body which is greatly enhanced by the reference to Am-monius at the end of this section. For Ammonius seems to havecompared the union of soul and body with the immanence ofthe idea in a particular representation of it in the phenomenalworld. Nemesius accepts this very Platonic estimate of thenature of the soul with such good will, that he is in no danger offalling, in this third chapter, into any form of union by con-fusion. Domanski (pp. cit. p. 59, Note 1) suggests that the sourceof the argument, in this section, is Porphyry's Miscellaneousquestions; which is likely enough; except for the final passageabout the opinion of Ammonius, which differs both in style andthought from the rest of the section. But this, if not Porphyry, isclearly from some other Neo-Platonist source.

TEXT

[M.131. 3-137.4.]21. So the soul is united to the body, and, further, this union

is without confusion. For union there is, as the sympathy shows,to wit, the community of feeling which is throughout the living


creature, because it is one subject.1 And that it involves no con-fusion is clear from the way the soul has of separating itself fromthe body in sleep, leaving the body lying as if dead, only that itkeeps the life just breathing in it, lest it should actually perish.Meanwhile the soul carries on an activity of its own in dreams,divining things to come and consorting with intelligibles. Thesame thing happens, also, when the soul meditates on some in-telligible. For at such times, the soul seems to sever itself frombody and claim its independence, that thus it may devote itselfto realities.2

The soul is incorporeal, and yet it has established its presencein every part of the body, just as much as if it were a partner tounion involving the sacrifice of its proper nature.3 Nevertheless,

1 This resumes the unresolved question in Section 13 whether an incorporealentity can be conjoined with body in the experience of feeling. "Themost learned authors," said Nemesius, meaning particularly Plotinus,think the soul to be, in its proper nature, impassible. Nevertheless, thevital power which is pre-requisite to feeling is acknowledged to be derivedby the body from the soul. It is therefore legitimate to speak of the soul's"sympathy" with its body, thus recognizing that while soul and body arenot partners on equal terms, in this respect, they are partners.

2 Two experiences were supposed by the ancients to show that the soulcould escape for a while from the bond of natural predilection for itsbody. The one was dreaming, and the other ecstasy. Because there was noclear concept of consciousness as a state of the soul, the difference betweendream-consciousness and waking-consciousness was too little considered.Dreams take place in sleep, and the things which the soul encounters indreams are not encountered in the body, like its waking experiences.Thus it was supposed that the soul left the body in sleep, and had itsdream experiences away from the body. The Neo-Platonists3 on the otherhand, set great store by the contemplative ecstasy, in which again thesuspension of sense-consciousness seemed to argue the absence of thesoul from the body; this time, as Nemesius says, for the purpose of"consorting with the intelligibles." When he speaks of the soul in absencefrom the body "divining things to come," it is not ecstasy, but dreaming,that is in view. Nemesius shared with all Christians of his age the belief,resting on scriptural testimony, that the future may be revealed in dreams.And he finds an explanation in the thought that the soul when freed fromthe body may voyage into the future. But these excursions of the soul arelimited. Presently the soul must return and awaken its body, and resumethe normal tenor of life. But, as the Neo-Platonists believed, the soulcame back from such sleep, or ecstasy, enriched. (See Note 2 to Section 32below.) It is very likely that Porphyry is the authority on whom Nemesiusrests, at this point.

3 Nemesius is thinking of the union of elements in a compound, whereeach undergoes some sacrifice of its proper nature. Such a union extendsthroughout the compound, just as the soul establishes its presence inevery part of the body. But in the compound, wherever there is theunion of elements, there is a sacrifice of propria of the elements thus in

2g8 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

it remains uncorrupted by body, just as if it were somethingquite distinct from it. Thus, on the one hand, the soul preservesits own independent unity of being, and on the other, it modifieswhatever it indwells, in accordance with its own life, while itselfsuffering no reciprocal change. For, as the presence of the suntransforms the air into light, making the air luminous by unitinglight with air, at once maintaining them distinct and yet meltingthem together, so likewise the soul is united to the body and yetremains distinct from it; the cases being different just in this,that the sun is a body, and circumscribed to its own portion ofspace, and therefore is not present everywhere where its light ispresent, any more than a flame is. For a flame is also, in a localsense, bound, to burning logs or to a wick, as the case may be,but the soul is incorporeal, and not circumscribed to a par-ticular portion of space, but spreading entire throughout; like asun that spread wherever its light reached, as well as throughoutthe body of the sun,4 not being just a part of the whole that itilluminates, as would be the case if it were not omnipresent in it.For it is not the body that masters the soul, but it is the soul thatmasters the body. Nor is the soul contained in the body, as if ina vessel, or bag. It might rather be said that the body is in thesoul.5 For we must not think of intelligibles as liable to meetresistance from bodies. We should think of them as extendingthrough the whole body, as though they ranged over them, orpervaded them. They must not, on the other hand, be supposedconfined to some portion of space. For, since they are intellig-ibles, they have relativity only to intelligibles; that is, they musteither be self-subsistent, or have their being within an intellig-ible of higher order. For example, the soul is, when engagedupon discursive thinking, an independent subject, but when

combination. In like manner Nemesius next compares the union of souland body with a mixture without combination, such as that of water andwine. Then he moves to a new comparison, that of the union of soul andbody with the intermingling of light and air in daytime. Here the soul iscompared with light. But that introduces a difficulty. Ubiquitous as isthe daylight, it is not everywhere producing itself, as it should, to providea true analogy for the soul. Domanski {op. cit., p. 61, Note i) calls attentionto a passage in Plotinus that could have inspired this passage on theunion of light and air.

4 This rendering accepts Matthaei's text and takes as subject the soul underthe figure of the sun.

5 Domanski, I.e. Note 3 gives a parallel in Plotinus to this notion of "thebody in the soul." Plato (Timaeus, 35) describes the world-soul as "spreadall through the body of the universe, and even stretching beyond, so asto wrap body about from without.'*


engaged in the activity of intuitive apprehension it is, as it were,a part of universal mind.6 Therefore, if the soul is said to be in abody, it is not so said in the sense of being located in a body, butrather as being in habitual relation of presence there, even asGod is said to be in us. For we may say that the soul is bound byhabit to the body, or by an inclination or disposition towards it,just as we say that a lover is bound to his beloved, not meaningphysically, or spatially, but habitually. For the soul is a thingthat has neither size, bulk, or parts, transcending particular andlocal circumscription.7 For how can something indivisible besaid to be locally circumscribed? Since place and bulk go to-gether, place being the bounds of the enclosing thing, where-within it encloses whatever is enclosed.

Suppose someone were to say, Well, then, my soul is inAlexandria and Rome and everywhere. He would be overlook-ing the fact that his form of speech itself implies locality, still.For the fact of being in Alexandria, or simply of being any-where, implies place. Now, "in a place" the soul is certainlynot, except by habit. For it has been shown that the soul is in-capable of being circumscribed to a place. Therefore, when anintelligible is in the relation of habit to a certain place, or to acertain thing conditioned by space, it is a catachrestic use ofwords, to say that it is "there," because its activity is there, andwe are accepting the notion of locality in lieu of that of habit, oractivity.8 For, when we say, "Soul is there," we ought to say,"Its activity is there."9

COMMENTARY

21. An enquiry into the manner in which the union of soul and bodyis maintained. Nemesius would have been ahead of his age if hehad discriminated between consciousness and the soul which isthe subject of consciousness. Consequently he is in severe diffi-6 Discursive thinking (logizesthai) proceeds from the initiative and energy

of the individual thinker, and emphasizes the self-subsistence of the soul.Intuitive apprehension (noein) is like an action of universal mind throughthe individual. The distinction is Plotinian.

7 See passages cited by Domanski from Porphyry, (op. cit., p. 66, Notes1 and 2).

8 The imaginary disputant argues that Nemesius has made the soulubiquitous. He retorts that he has made it non-spatial. We may compareNemesius' notion of the soul's indwelling in the body by habit of pre-dilection with that of Theodore of Mopsuestia that God indwells in therighteous, not by omnipresence, but by his favour (eudokia).

9 Domanski (op. cit., pp. 67, 68) supposes that the opinion of AmmoniusSaccas, invoked in Section 20 (or its development by a Neo-Platonistauthor), is in fact being followed to the end of this section.


culties to express the relation of the soul to locality. It is, ofcourse, consciousness that is subject to location, in being sorelated to the body and its organs as to share in its subjection tothe conditions of place and time. But as Nemesius could notdistinguish consciousness of which the soul is the subject fromthe being of the soul itself, he was driven to attributing to thesoul a natural predilection binding it to its body, as the onlyway to avoid attributing spatiality to the soul.

TEXT[M. 137.4-144.10.]

22. The above arguments would apply even more exactly tothe union of the divine Word with his manhood. For he con-tinued thus in union, without confusion, and without beingcircumscribed, in a different manner from the soul. For thesoul, being one of the things in process of completion, and be-cause of its propriety to body, seems even in some way to sufferwith it, sometimes mastering it, and sometimes being masteredby it.2 But the divine Word suffers no alteration from the fellow-

1 Christian doctrinal writers commonly reversed the argument comparingthe union of soul and body in man with that of God and man in theincarnation, so as to use the former to persuade of the latter. Not tilla century after Nemesius was it generally recognized that the argumentin this form favoured a Monophysite conclusion, by suggesting thatChrist's manhood was by nature akin with the uncreated Logos. Nem-esius takes the argument the other way round, and starts with theLogos who, being by nature immutable, must be held to be unaffectedin himself by taking manhood. At the end of Section 17, Nemesius isseen to incline to the belief that a soul, once for all in the beginningcreated by the Logos, comes into actuality when God grants conceptionof its predestined body. We must therefore suppose that, in the incarna-tion, the Logos united with himself the soul for which was predestinedthe body born of Mary. Because of this union, Jesus "increased inwisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.'* But the Logosdid not increase. When the body was slain, its union with the Logosdelivered it from corruption and raised it to glory. Jesus learned obedienceby the things which he suffered, his soul having the true nature of soul,and being affected by what he experienced in the body. The Logos didnot suffer or learn, but only sustained and revealed. Such is the Christologyof Nemesius. When he says that the Word continued in union with manhoodunconfusedly, he anticipates two of the famous four adverbs by which theSymbol of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, defined the nature of the union. This isremarkable from a writer of fifty years earlier. Some scholars have thoughtit too remarkable for credit, and have preferred to date the work ofNemesius in the second half of the fifth century. On a balance of argu-ments, it is safer to conclude the adjectives "indivisibly, unconfusedly"to be what might be expected from an Antiochene.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 3OI

ship which he has with the body and the soul. In sharing withthem his own Godhead, he does not partake their infirmity. Heis one with them, and yet he continues in that state in which hewas, before his entry into that union. This manner of minglingor union is something quite new. The Word mingles with bodyand soul, and yet remains throughout unmixed, unconfused,uncorrupted, untransformed, not sharing their passivity butonly their activity, not perishing with them, nor changing asthey change; but, on the one hand, contributing to theirgrowth, and, on the other, nowise degraded by contact withthem, so that he continues immutable and unconfused, seeingthat he is altogether without share in any kind of alteration.Here Porphyry, who often spoke against Christ, shall be a wit-ness on our side. The witness that our enemies bear on our be-half is cogent and uncontradictable. This Porphyry, then, inthe second book of his Miscellaneous Questions, writes, word forword, as follows: "So, then, it may not be denied that any beingis liable to be assumed as complement to another being. It canbe part of a being, while preserving its own proper nature afterit has afforded completion to the other being, both becomingone with the other, and continuing one in itself; and, what ismore, without suffering any change itself, it may, by its pres-ence, transform those things in which it is, into the means of itsown activity."2 Porphyry uses these words in discussing theunion of soul and body. If the incorporeity of the soul, then,justifies this argument, much more does it apply in the case ofthe divine Word, who is incomparably and truly incorporeal.Porphyry's words clearly close the mouths of those who wouldargue against the possibility of the union of God with man.Average Greeks, however, scoff at it, saying that it is impossible,incredible, and improper, that the divine should be joined tomortal nature by way of mingling and union. To rebut theircharge, we appeal, then, to their own most approved witnesses.

Now there are some, and particularly among the Eunom-ians,3 who say that the divine Word was united to the body, not

2 The work here cited is not otherwise extant. By "the thing assumed,"Porphyry means the soul, which, by its activities, affects the body, ofwhich it is the complement.

3 The information here given about the Christology of Eunomius is uniqueto this passage. Eunomius held the Logos to be a creature. But, to judgefrom what Nemesius here says, he did not, like the earlier Arians, sup-pose the Logos to take the place of the soul in the body of Christ. Neither,apparently, did he speak explicitly of the soul of Jesus, but only of thefaculties and senses belonging to the body taken by the Logos. Nemesius


by union of being, but by the uniting of the powers of eithernature, and that it is not the being of the Word and of bodythat are united, or combined, but the powers of the body wereinfused with divine powers; and, by the powers of the body, re-garded altogether as an organism, they mean the senses, just asAristotle does.4 According to them, therefore, the divine powersmingled themselves with the senses, and thus completed a unionof Word and senses. I do not think that anyone would concur intheir opinion, which represents the senses as identical with thefaculties of the body. For it has been clearly defined above,5

how that some things are proper to the body, some to the soul,and some are the property of both in common. Among thethings common to both, and although they operate throughorgans, we placed the senses, while we said that the organsthemselves belong to the body. It were better, then, to repeatwhat we said before, that, having regard to the nature properto the incorporeal, the union of soul and body involves no con-fusion of one with the other; so that the more spiritual being isnot impaired by the inferior being, but the latter only is profitedby the more spiritual, seeing that the purely incorporeal nature

accuses Eunomius of confusing together the senses and faculties. He makesthis out to be a too faithful following of Aristotle. But that is more ingeniousthan ingenuous, because Eunomius' reliance on dialectic was a well-knowntarget for orthodox polemics, and the present passage offered anotheropportunity to insinuate that Eunomians were Aristotelians rather thanChristians. The charge of confusing the faculties and senses is made theopportunity for Nemesius to draw a distinction between them. The sensesare passive, while the faculties are active. Therefore, Nemesius held, inthe union of the divine Word with manhood, all sense-experience andsuffering of Christ reached no farther than the soul of Jesus, and did nottouch the impassible Logos. On the other hand, the Logos could, anddid, supply superhuman power to the faculties of his body of incarnation.We gather that Eunomius, whose Logos was not immutable and impas-sible in his proper nature, but only by grace of the Father, conceived thatthe Logos, to fulfil the Father's will, was reached by the things sufferedthrough the senses, so as to endure while imparting endurance to thebody. The fault of Eunomius is clearly in trying to unite senses andfaculties into one system with no soul to hold them together. The ration-alism of Eunomius, regardless of doctrinal tradition within the Church,did not incline him to reticence with regard to his own doctrine, and sofreed Nemesius from reticence in refuting him. The phrase translated"by union of being" became a standard phrase of orthodox Christologyin the fifth century, so that Eunomius' avoidance of it is a count againsthim.

4 This is no more just to Aristotle than the former charge of explainingaway, by the concept of entelechy, the substantiality of the soul.

5 Nemesius may have in mind the opening of Section 7.


both spreads without obstruction through every part, andsuffers no invasion, itself. And so union takes place, on the onehand, by the soul's power of pervading the body throughout,and, on the other, by the soul's immunity from invasion, where-by it continues unmixed and unconfused.

The manner of union is, therefore, not by divine favour,6 asis the opinion of certain men of note, but is grounded in nature.For one might, very properly, say that the taking of a body wasan act of divine favour, but that the unconfused union is aproper work of the divine nature, and not of divine favour,alone. For the doctrine of the different orders of souls, withtheir ascending and descending, which Origen introduced,7 has

6 Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, 392-428, would appear to have writtenhis book, On the incarnation (sarcastically referred to by Leontius ofByzantium as Against the incarnation), while still a presbyter at Antioch.In this work he followed a long tradition of Antiochene theology inabhorring the use of expressions attributing circumscription to God, inincarnation. Theodore argued that, while the evil cannot escape fromdivine omnipresence, it is only the holy who enjoy communion with him.On this analogy, Theodore attempted to explain the incarnation as acommunion of Jesus with the Word. This communion he held to havebeen unique, by the unique degree of divine favour, as it were, "concen-trated" upon Jesus, such as to overcome all otherness of Jesus, in relationto the Word. Such communion, Theodore held, constituted union. ButNemesius sees that Theodore's argument is based upon a negation,namely, that God is such as could not unite himself with man. Nemesiusretorts that it is because of what God is, that is, because of God's nature,that the paradox of incarnation is credible. The recently-discovered laterworks of Theodore show him following a line much closer to that ofNemesius than he followed in his notorious work of youth.

7 The leap, which Nemesius here makes, to attacking Origen, mightappear, though deceptively, to break connection with what he had beensaying about the opinion of Theodore (his use of an anonymous pluralneed not make us suppose that he has anyone else in view but Theodore).That he should desire to refute Origen is the more natural, since Origenbecame the object of formal condemnation at Alexandria in A.D. 399,and at Rome in the following year. In fact, his obvious interest in re-futing Origen, when it appears that he made great use of Origen's lostCommentary on Genesis, may indicate that he did not write earlier thanA.D. 400. The particular subject of condemnation was Origen's doctrineof the pre-existence of souls. Part of this doctrine was the teaching thatthe soul of Christ alone had been in unfailing obedience to God from thevery moment of creation of the intelligible world, and was thereforemade the "own" of the Word, and predestined to be the means of hisincarnation. Nemesius here implies that the doctrine of Theodore reallyinvolves the same notion of Jesus as had been propounded by Origen,and so was in danger of sharing the Origenist taint. Part of the scoreagainst Origen may have been the interest aroused by his speculationsoutside the Church.


nothing to warrant it in the Holy Scriptures, nor does it fitharmoniously with the rest of Christian dogma, and so is un-acceptable.

COMMENTARY

22. The union of soul and body illustrated from Christology. In thissection, Nemesius uses the exposition of an orthodox AntiocheneChristology, and a refutation of Eunomian Christology, to illus-trate and confirm what he has said about the union of soul andbody. Seeing that in this very chapter he had alluded to thepossibility that some of his readers may not acknowledge theauthority of Scripture, it might be thought remarkable thatNemesius should show so little reticence on the subject ofChristian doctrine as he does in this Section. It must be recog-nized, however, that a great change had taken place in regardto such matters, since the first half of the fourth century,especially in regard to the dogma of the incarnation. The doc-trinal controversies concerning the nature and Person of Christhad removed the possibility of keeping all knowledge of suchsubjects from the non-Christian public, especially in a countrylike Syria, where the two elements in society had now for longmingled on easier terms than in the west. Moreover these con-troversies had taken a form so public and political as even tolead to open breaches of the peace, so that it was out of thequestion but that those outside the Church must have an idea ofthe issues on which Christians disagreed. Nemesius accordinglysupposes that unbaptized readers will have some idea what hemeans when he speaks of the union of the divine Word with hismanhood. The argument runs; "If the Logos, being God, couldunite manhood to himself without yielding anything of his God-head, there is no reason to doubt that soul can be in unconfusedunion with body." Logically, this argument should be withoutforce for anyone who rejected Christianity. But the attitude ofthe public for which Nemesius wrote was not one of convincedrejection of Christianity. And this limited expedition into Christ-ology conveys the suggestion that Christians have a consistentsystem of thought in which the problems of the nature of manfind their true solution. This is good apologetic, especially whenreinforced by the appeal to Porphyry, the representative ofNeo-Platonism, the non-Christian system of thought that wasintellectually the most respectable. Incidentally, Nemesius5

handling of Christology, slight as it is, is acute and independentenough to be of some importance for the history of Christiandoctrine.


[M. 145.1-1504.]

IV. Of the Body

TEXT

23. Every body is a mingling together of the four elements, andwas evolved from them. Immediately, however, the bodies ofliving creatures which have blood consist of the four humours,blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile.1 Bloodless animals havethe other three humours and what in them corresponds withblood. We say "immediately" when the thing is made of thoseconstituents directly, in the way that the four humours are amingling of the four elements, and that the different kinds oftissue which form the different members of the body are amingling of the humours. So the humours can be compared,black bile with earth, phlegm with water, blood with air, andcholer with fire. Every mingling of the elements is either solid,liquid, or gaseous. Aristotle would have the bodies of livingcreatures to be made directly of blood alone, since it is im-mediately by blood that all the members of an animal body arenourished and made to grow. Certainly semen is derived fromblood. But, as it did not seem likely that the hardest bones, andtenderest flesh, and fat, all derived from one and the same thing,Hippocrates first preferred2 the view that animal bodies arecompounded immediately from the four humours, so that themore rigid parts are formed of the more earthy and coarse ofthem, and the soft parts of the more refined. Often, all fourhumours are found in the blood, as may be seen during phle-botomy. Sometimes serous phlegm is predominant, and, atothers, black bile or choler. From this it appears how far menare uniform in constitution.3 Some parts of living creatures are

1 See Section 15, Note 3.2 i.e., in the controversy here canvassed, Hippocrates (fifth century) was

the first to deal with the question, Aristotle resuming it in the fourthcentury B.C. Skard shows (I.e.) that this argument to reconcile Aristotleand Hippocrates, is Galenic. He will not credit Nemesius with resumingit from his own wide reading in Galen, and in Aristotle's History ofAnimals, but prefers the alternative of a lost work of Galen whichNemesius has followed slavishly. This estimate of Nemesius is too un-favourable to escape suspicion of prejudice.

3 Nemesius has, no doubt, here reproduced an observation of Galen,whose notes of the results of many phlebotomies supported the conclusion,made by him in a medical interest, of the great uniformity of the physicalconstitution of man. Nemesius notes it, presumably, because it helpsto universalize ethics.20—c.j.


of one kind of tissue throughout, and some are of differentkinds. Of the first kind are brain, membrane, sinew, marrow,bone, tooth, cartilage, glands, ligaments, films, fibres, hair,nails, flesh, veins, arteries, ducts, fat, or skin. And what mightbe called the immediate constituents of these are blood (in itspure state), phlegm, black bile, and choler. For muscle is com-posite of ligaments and fibrous sinews. And the parts compositeof various tissues are the head, chest, hands, feet, and man'sother members. For, when a head is divided up, the divisionsare not heads, in the way that a sinew divided up gives portionsof sinew, and so with vein or flesh. Every part composite ofdifferent tissues has components each of one kind of tissue; forexample, the head is made up of sinew, flesh, bone, and so on.These composite parts are also termed organic.4 The definitionof homogenous parts is as follows: parts, of which, if they aresubdivided, each subdivision is like the whole, and like theothers: like, in this definition, is to be taken in the sense ofidentical.

Not every kind of living creature possesses every kind ofcorporeal member, but some such members may be absent.There are things with no feet, such as fishes or snakes, and somewith no heads, like crabs and lobsters, or certain floatingcreatures. For these creatures, as they have no heads, keep theirorgans of perception in their breasts. Creatures that do notbreathe air, have no lung. Some creatures have no bladder, asbirds and all creatures that do not urinate. Things with thickshells lack most members, for in few of them is there the realityof a living creature. Some creatures appear to lack somethingthat, in fact, they possess, like stags, which appear to have nocholer, though they do possess choler, but dispersed through theentrails, and consequently not observable.

But man not only has all the members, but has them perfect,and such that they could not be changed for the better.

So, too, there is great variety among living creatures as to thepositions of the different parts. Some animals have their teats ontheir breasts, other on their bellies, and others under theirthighs. Some have two, some four, and some more. For Nature

4 The English use is to distinguish as organs those members of the bodythat appear devoted to a specific function. A member which is recog-nizable as a unity serving certain purposes, such as head or foot, is notcalled by us an organ. But in Greek it was so called. Therefore eachcomposite structure recognized as possessing this kind of functional unitywas classed as organic.


generally makes the number of teats correspond with the num-ber of young produced at a birth. Should the reader wish topursue this subject in detail, let him read Aristotle's History ofAnimals.5 It is no part of the purpose of this present book to gointo such detail, but only to put before the reader outlines orsketches,6 as one may call them. So let us pass on to discuss theelements, which is the matter next due for our examination.

COMMENTARY

23. Man's body, in the light of comparative anatomy and physiology.The point of this section, for Nemesius, is the emphasis which itlays upon the pre-eminence of the human body, as an instru-ment for the living of a creaturely life. For his use of Galen inthis section, see Skard (JVemesiosstudien in, Symbolae Osloenses,Fasc. XVIII, pp. 31-39).

[M. 150.5-160.6.]

V . Of the elements

TEXT

24. The basic matter1 of the universe plays the least direct2

5 History is here used in the sense which we now particularize as naturalhistory, which consists, in fact, of description and classification, ratherthan narrative.

6 It has militated against the reputation of Nemesius for originality as athinker that his so-called "outlines" on scientific and philosophicalmatters are so plainly reached by skimming books. His originality is, ofcourse, not as a scientist or philosopher, but as a Christian, possessingsome training in medicine and philosophy, in trying to integrate faithwith the outlook of an educated man, in the secular sense.

1 The ancients postulated a single first-principle of materiality, undifferen-tiated, and unexperienced by the senses. Known to the senses are theelements and the bodies which they go to form. The relation of these tothe primal matter was the subject of a special theory which Nemesiuspasses by. Jaeger suggests that at this point Nemesius is drawing uponthe work of Galen entitled On the elements according to Hippocrates. Skard(I.e.) likewise attributes to the influence of this work the sequence ofch. v upon ch. iv.

2 Literally "the least" or "the last." Whereas bodies are seen to be com-posed of bones, flesh, fat, and the like, these in turn derive from the fourhumours by which they are built up in the process of growth and nourish-ment. The humours in turn consist of the four elements, which are theforms under which the basic matter of the universe is manifest. Thisbasic matter thus lies at the end of a progressive analysis of the compositionof the body, and so the opening sentence of this section is carrying on the


part in the composition of bodies. There are four material ele-ments, earth, water, air, and fire,3 to mention them in ascendingorder of activity, and by comparison with other bodies they arecorporeal in a primary and simple sense. For every element ishomogenous in all portions of itself. And while the basic matteris not thus homogenous with the elements deriving from it, eachelement is homogenous throughout itself. Now it is clear thatearth, water, air, and fire are the elements, because in themappear the root-qualities,4 both potentially and actively. Yetwe never meet with any perceptible portion of any of theseelements pure and without any other element mixed with it.For they have all to some slight extent suffered adulteration,and are mixed with each other in greater or less degree. But evenin such a mixture the nature of each element declares itself.Each of the elements has two linked qualities which determineits characteristic form. For earth is dry and cold, water cold andwet, air (as concerns its proper nature)5, moist and warm, andfire hot and dry. Now these qualities cannot possibly be them-selves elements. For it is out of the question to constitute bodiesout of incorporeal qualities, and it is likewise impossible for anyother bodies but the four elements also to be elements, since theyhave not the corresponding quality in its radical form andactive state. For otherwise there would be an indefinite numberof elements, since any of the root-qualities is possessed ingreater or less degree by everything that exists, so as to afford nocriterion of what is relatively an element. It follows of necessitythat that is an element which is corporeal and simple in itscorporeity, possessing actively in addition the root-qualities, to

thought of the previous chapter. Jaeger (op. cit., p. 71) must surely bewrong when he takes "the least part in the composition of bodies" to bea definition of the basic matter.

3 The four elements first appear in a poem, Nature, by the Sicilian aristocratEmpedocles, of the mid-fifth century, B.C. From this start, the four-elementtheory underwent progressive elaboration down to the age of the Neo-Platonists.

4 The theory of four root-qualities, hot, cold, moist, and dry, seems to beprior to the four-element theory, for the qualities, hot, wet, and dry seemto pick out fire, water, and earth respectively as corresponding elements.To these three, air is an obvious fourth.

s Air fitted with difficulty into the scheme, since it possesses its qualities,moist and warm, in no absolute degree. Its yieldingness offered an ex-planation of this, however, and the connection of air, warmth, andmoisture with life might invest air with a distinction suited to an element.But the ancients were content that no other substances or qualities couldcompete with the accepted groups of four.


wit, hot, cold, moist, and dry. For these are the only qualitiesthat permeate things and change them radically. None of theother qualities does so. For take the colour white. If you applyit to a body, it does not transfuse it with whiteness, in the waythat heat makes it hot and cold chills it. And the like is true ofany of the other qualities.

The elements are mutually opposed, in the sense that one hasa pair of root-qualities while another has the opposite pair. Forexample, water is opposed to fire, as a thing that is cold and wetopposed to another that is hot and dry; or earth which is op-posed to air as the cold and dry to the hot and moist. And asthese opposites could not be in union if no intermediary hadbeen ordained as a bond to bind them together, the Creatorordained water as a mean between earth and air, which areopposites, and gave it two qualities, namely cold and wet,wherewith it might take part with the opposed extremes andbind them together. For, as being cold, it is adapted to earth,and in being moist it is at one with air. Again, as a meanbetween water and fire, these also being opposites, God ordainedair, adapted to water, as being moist, and to fire by being warm.And in such wise he united the opposed elements one to otherby means of appropriate intermediaries, which unite the op-posites by binding together both themselves and the elementsthey are connecting. For there is no better kind of bond thanthat.6

So, then, God united each element to the element beneath it,in respect to one of its root-qualities, and to the element aboveit in respect to the other. For example, water is cold and wet,but its coldness unites it to earth which is below it in the scale,while its wetness unites it with air which is above it. In likemanner air is united with water below it by moistness, and withfire above it by heat. And while fire is united with air below itby heat, if we break off and turn back to the bottom of the scale,then, by dryness, it is united with earth: and so earth also isunited by coldness with water, but, by retorsion of the scale,7 it

6 We may conclude that it was an accepted philosophical dogma that therecan be no improving upon Nature. There seems, however, to be an al-lusion, here, to the closing sentence of a citation from the Timaeus in thenext section.

7 Nemesius imagines a vertical rectilinear scale, measuring subtlety,mobility, and activity, with earth at the bottom and fire at the top. Toget direct relations between these two extremes, he converts his scalefrom rectilinear into cyclic by the image of bending round a straight lineuntil it forms a circle.


is united with fire by dryness. For, in a manner of speaking,God bent back and turned round the ends of the scale (I meanfire and earth) to meet in full circle, so that the elements shouldbe related not merely to the one above and the one below in ascale of higher and lower, but in a circular relation.8 For whenfire loses its heat but not its dryness it becomes earth. This is tobe seen from thunderbolts, because, in a thunderbolt the fire, asit comes down to earth, is cooled off from excessive heat andsolidifies into stone. Therefore every thunderbolt ends up assomething between stone and brimstone. Brimstone is in fact asort of frozen fire. It is not any longer actively hot, although itis potentially so, while, in fact as well as in potentiality, it is dry.Only the elements have the root-qualities in active form, whileeverything other than the elements has them only potentially,9

unless it be but little removed from consisting of a single ele-ment. For the Creator in his wisdom devised that, lest the ele-ments or the bodies made up of elements should ever by anymeans fail, the elements should be convertible both into oneanother and into composite bodies, and that composite bodiesshould be resolvable into elements again. And so, by process ofperpetual transformations, they are kept continually in being.For earth, churned into mud, turns to water, and converselywater, thickening to mud, turns to earth, while when heated itvaporizes into air, and air, condensed and congealed, returns towater. When air, on the other hand, is parched dry, it turnsto fire, while fire has but to be quenched and lose its dryness tovaporize. For air is both quenched fire and warmed and vapor-ized water. So, then, it is clear from these two facts that air isbegotten of heat. For when water is warmed and when fire isquenched the common product is air. Thus according to its ownproper nature air is hot, but cools in proximity to water andearth. So the lower atmosphere adjoining the earth is cold,while the upper air, which is nearest to the celestial fire, is hot.Now this variation is due to the softness and yieldingness of air,whereby it easily deviates from its natural state and is trans-formed. Aristotle says that there are two kinds of air, onevaporous and generated from the evaporation of water, and the8 Soot would count as earth. But more spectacular is the instance of the

"thunderbolt" (meteorite), beloved of the meteorologists, includingPosidonius.

9 Wood, or sulphur, in being inflammable, has the potentiality of heat, butonly reaches the actuality when transformed into fire by burning. Sea-water would exemplify a near-element, being not pure water, but activelywet.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 3II

other fumy and produced by extinguishing fire. It is the latterkind, he says, that is hot, while the vaporous air is also warmwhen it is generated, but soon it cools, bit by bit, and pro-gressively turns back into water. He was driven to the hypothesisthat there are two kinds of air10 by the fact that things very highup and far removed from the earth's surface appear to be colder,as well as by the need to escape from certain other absurdities.11

All bodies, whether of plants or animals, originate from thecoming together of the four elements, and for the making ofthese bodies Nature assembles the elements in their purestform. Aristotle calls these bodies physical bodies12 because theyare not made by conglomeration of matter but by all the ele-ments being mingled throughout into the closest unity, so as tomake the body one particular thing in itself and different fromits constituent elements. This union of elements is such thatthere is afterwards no way of distinguishing them apart, sinceearth does not appear as such, nor water, nor air, nor fire,because, by the coming together of the four, there has beenformed a particular unity differing from any one of the com-ponents and comparable with the fourfold prescription.13 For,in the case of the fourfold prescription, the medicament itself issomething quite different from any of the ingredients.

However, the cases are not quite the same. For the elementsare not mingled in bodies in the same way as the ingredients aremingled in the medicament, by the juxtaposition everywhere ofvery tiny particles of each ingredient. They are united by aprocess of transformation. And bodies in corruption are resolvedagain into their elements. And in this wise the universe enduresperpetually, and exactly suffices to bring to birth all existingthings, with nothing to spare and nothing to seek. Hence thesaying, "One thing is born, another dies; one thing dies,10 On generation and corruption, Bk. II, ch. iv, Section 9. The reasons to which

Nemesius alludes are not in the text of Aristotle, but were those accumu-lated in the commentaries.

n Aristotle's theory explained snow on mountain tops as due to water-produced air, though the fire-produced upper air might be hot.

12 In contrast with bodies made by art or accident, plant and animal bodiesare constituted as such by the operation of nature. Aristotle's generaldefinition of a body as such is "something that extends in each dimension,and is indefinitely divisible." It is in contrast with this that Aristotle issaid to have a separate definition of a physical, i.e., an organic body.

13 The concoction called par excellence "the prescription" was a mixture ofwaXj tallow, pitch and resin. K. Reinhardt (Kosmos und Sympathiespp. 10-20, Munich, 1926) says that the prescription was often invokedby Stoic writers in illustration of the union of constituents in a body.


another is born," applicable not only to the soul, as it was saidabove,14 but to the body as well.

COMMENTARY

24. Every body is constituted from an indestructible cycle of fourelements. Nemesius begins this section by summarizing the re-ceived four-element theory of the material universe. The readermust naturally wonder why, in a work on the nature of man, itshould be necessary to digress so far. But, as has been said, wemust seek the answer in a little tract of Hippocrates, On thenature of man, which can be almost reconstructed with the help ofa commentary which Galen composed upon it (Berlin CorpusMedicorum Graecorum, Vol. v, 9.1), and an elaboration of itwhich he wrote, under the title of On the elements, according toHippocrates. (Edition by G. Helmreich, Erlangen, 1878.) In thistract Hippocrates argues that the art of the physician is basedupon the fact that man's body consists of permanently differingconstituents, the maladjustments of which express themselves insuffering, for which there would be no occasion in a body thatwas everywhere formed of one single element. In Section 26,towards the close of the present chapter, Nemesius cites twosentences in which Hippocrates summarizes his refutation of thetheory that all material existence is based on one ultimate formof matter. We can attribute to this Hippocratic theme the great-est influence on Nemesius. It gave him his cue for relating man'ssufferings, and indeed all his sensible experience, to the consti-tution of his body. And this thought is so central to his treat-ment of the nature of man that he adopted, for his work, thesame title as that of the tract of Hippocrates; and his aim is con-tinually to interpret the conscious life of the soul in the light ofwhat can be known of the human body. This whole chapter isthe subject of a chapter in Jaeger (op. cit., pp. 68—96, of which68-77 cover the present section) entitled "the cycle of theelements," in which he shows how Nemesius reproduces the

14 The allusion is to the later part of Section 18, where the various beliefswere reviewed concerning the transmigration of souls. They all assumethat, as a soul leaves one body by death, it passes into another body thatis in the act of being conceived. And the Neo-Platonists drew the con-clusion that soul is indestructible. It is unlikely that Nemesius believed intransmigration of souls in any form, but, on the other hand, he believedin the indestructibility of the soul. As an apologist, he accepts the supportof the Neo-Platonists in this matter, without reference to the grounds onwhich they based it. And now he recalls it, as affording a parallel to thedoctrine of the indestructibility of matter, which he has just enunciated.


world-view of Posidonius. The relation to Galen of this and thenext two sections is discussed by Skard (Lc. pp. 39-41). Theapologetic value of this discourse on the elements lies in Neme-sius' Christian sense of the goodness and wisdom of God under-lying the intricate pattern of material existence. And this valueresides rather in the faith of the apologist than in the finality ofthe human science to which he makes appeal. He can leave it anopen question whether there are two kinds of air, as Aristotlesays, or only one, provided that, as far as human knowledgegoes, it conforms with the good purposes of God towards us.

TEXT[M. 160.6-166.4.]

25. The opinion of Plato is that three of the elements aretransformable one into other, but that earth remains untrans-formable. For he likens each element to a rectilinear solidfigure, comparing earth to the cube, as being the hardest ofthem to overturn, while he compares water to the icosahedronas being the steadiest of the remaining three. He likens fire to apyramid,l as being the easiest to overturn, and air to the octa-hedron, because air is more mobile than water but less so thanfire. From consideration of these shapes he deduces his proofthat the three other elements are mutually transformable, oneinto other, but that earth resists transformation. He says thatthe three shapes, pyramid, octahedron, and icosahedron areconstructed from scalene triangles, but the cube from isoscelestriangles.2 He asserts, therefore, that these shapes which areconstructed from scalene triangles can be broken down and re-constructed as one of the others, but that, if a cube is broken

1 There seems to be a pun in likening fire (pyr) to a pyramid, and some ofthe ancients derived pyramid from pyr. It is now thought that pyramidis derived from an Egyptian word. But it is possible that Plato saw somemystic fitness in the pyramidal shape, to be the symbol of fire. He certainlyconnected the shape with the sharpness of fire, saying, in Timaeus, xxi,"that which has the fewest bases must be the most cutting and keen,"and, in the following chapter, speaking of earth as dissolved by thekeenness of fire.

2 Any triangle is reducible to two rectangular triangles by dropping aperpendicular from the apex to the base. If the triangle is equilateral,the rectangular triangles will be isosceles, and if otherwise they will bescalene. The triangles involved in a cube are rectangular isoscelestriangles. For Plato's other figures the corresponding triangles would bescalene. This difference enabled Plato, through his ingenious, if fanciful,speculation on the solid regular shapes, to give a reason for the differentbehaviour of solids from that of water, fire, or air.


down, the parts cannot be put together again so as to make oneof the other three figures, since it is constructed from isoscelestriangles, from which it is impossible to build up any of theother three shapes. Conversely, none of the three, when brokendown, can be built up into a cube. Of necessity, therefore, thebodies whose form corresponds with these shapes are related toone another in the same way that the shapes are related.3

Meanwhile earth was not supposed by Plato to remain im-pervious, but to be penetrated by bodies of finer texture andthus regenerated,4 though by no means transformed into thething by which it is pervaded. For it is presently restored to itsproper state, as appears when we put it into water. For if onethrows a little earth into water and stirs it up, the earth dissolvesinto the water. But when stirring ceases and the water becomesstill, the earth is precipitated. And that shows us how to thinkof earth in general.5 Here there is no transformation, butmingling, which in due course separates out again. Plato alsosays that earth is broken up by the sharpness of fire, and whenso dissipated is carried up in flame, or in a gust of air (that is, ifit chances that air dissipates it) or in water (when it has beendissolved in water).

Another way to distinguish between the elements, Plato says,is that each element has three qualities. Fire has sharpness, fine-ness, and mobility. Earth, the other extreme among the ele-ments, has the opposite qualities to those of fire, namely dull-ness, close texture, and immobility, so that, in respect of theirqualities, fire and earth are opposites; a result that we did notget from the pairs of qualities under the other scheme.6 Platosays that by taking qualities from these two extremes we get themiddle elements. For, take two qualities of fire, fineness andmobility, and one quality of earth, dullness, and air is consti-tuted, which receives its form by having the three qualities of

3 Plato supposed the elements to consist of corpuscles so tiny as to be in-visible, but that these corpuscles accumulated in such numbers as toform sensible quantities of the corresponding element. Each corpusclehe supposed to have the shape of the solid body to which the element iscompared. And he explained the behaviour of the elements in bulk asdue to the shapes of the corpuscles.

4 The idea, here, is probably that soil is made fertile, when soaked withwater, that iron is tempered by being heated, that the body is dependenton breathing air, and so on.

5 Note the difference of this theory and that of the liquefaction of earth inSection 24.

* In Section 24 it is water and fire that are opposed.


dullness, fineness and mobility. Again, take two qualities ofearth, dullness and close texture, and from fire the singlequality of mobility, and there you have water, which receivesits form by having dullness, close texture and mobility.

As sharpness is to dullness, so is fire to air, and as fineness is toclose texture, so is air to water, and as motion is to stillness, so iswater to earth. So, to be sure, air is to water as fire is to air, andwater is to earth as air is to water. For it is the way of plainfigures to be related by a single dimension, that is to say, bysimple proportion, while, for comparison of solid figures, twodimensions are needed.

Another way of describing the qualities of elements is to saythat earth and water are heavy, so as naturally to fall, and airand fire are light, so as naturally to rise. The Stoic phrase is thatsome elements are active and others passive. Aristotle, however,introduces a fifth corporeal element which is ethereal and ro-tatory, because he will not have heaven to consist of the fourmundane elements.7 He calls his fifth element rotatory becauseit moves in a circle round the earth. But Plato asserts explicitlythat the heaven is made of fire and earth. For Plato says8 thus:" Any thing that has come into being must be corporeal, visible,and tangible. Nothing is visible unless fire is present. Nothing istangible without solidity. Nothing is solid but there is earth init. Therefore in setting out to make the body of the universe,God formed it of earth and fire. But two things cannot be wellcombined without a third thing to bind them together, for, ifthey are both to be joined, there must be a bond. Now the bestof bonds is one that makes itself and the things it unites as com-plete a unity as possible. Proportion9 is the thing best fitted toaccomplish this."

So Plato designates as bond the two elements selected asmiddle terms in the above-mentioned scale.

COMMENTARY

25. The Platonic theory of the elements. Section 24 having out-lined the Empedoclean theory of the elements as developed byAristotle, Nemesius now gives an outline of the Platonic theory,from chs. xx-xxii of the Timaeus, and ends the section with aconsiderable citation from the opening of ch. vii. Jaeger (op. cit.,

7 Aristotle, On the world, ch. ii, adopting the theory of Anaxagoras.8 The citation is from the opening of Timaeus, vii.9 i.e., a mean must have obvious relation to the terms it connects.


pp. 77-96) argues that Nemesius' direct source is the lost Com-mentary of Posidonius on the Timaeus, and not, as Krausethought, Porphyry's Commentary. The point is not importantfor the understanding of Nemesius.

Nemesius seems, on the whole, to side with Plato againstAristotle, particularly on the matter of the fifth element. Buthis interest in scientific theories and their differences is clearlysubsidiary to his apologetic interest in putting science to thetask of illuminating human values. On this the controversy overAristotle and Plato has little bearing. Two things may seem tomove Nemesius to prefer Plato's theory. It enhances the wonderof creation, and, in teaching that earth remains itself throughall its relations with the other elements, it offers a parallel tothe doctrine that the soul preserves its own nature through allits union with the body.

TEXT

[M. 166.4-171.6.]26. Those who favour the doctrines of the Jews1 take a differ-

ent line concerning the heaven and the earth from those wehave been considering. For almost all others2 . . . The first-mentioned persons, on the other hand, say that the heaven andthe earth were not made from any pre-existing matter, sinceMoses says, "In the beginning, God made the heaven and theearth."3 Apollinarius, however, will have it that it was out ofthe deep that God made the heaven and the earth, seeing thatin his account of the world's creation Moses made no mention ofthe coming into being of the deep. Nevertheless in Job4 wehave, "Who made the deep." So Apollinarius will have it thatit was from the deep as pre-existing matter that all the otherthings were made. He does not say, certainly, that the deep isuncreated, but that it is something that came into being as a

1 This formula probably points to Origen's Commentary on Genesis,which, no doubt, discussed and defended the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

2 Although the manuscripts show no lacuna and the text is translatable,the sense indicates that something is missing. The "almost all others"are in contrast with the biblical and ecclesiastical writers, whose viewsnevertheless follow. What has dropped out, whether in MS transmission,or in (unrevised) draft, is that the "others" taught the eternity of matter.

3 G e n . 1 : 1 .* This must be meant for a citation of Job 34:13, where the LXX has, not

"the deep," but "what is under heaven" (presumably, "the earth").There is no evidence of textual variation, and we must suppose thatApollinarius took it arbitrarily to mean "the deep."


first foundation laid down by the Creator before all corporealcreatures, to be the basis of all the rest. Further he says that thevery name "the deep" points to the unknowableness of theprimal matter.5 But whether this is so or not, it makes no differ-ence. For even if it be granted that the God of all things followedthis order, he is shown to be God and Creator, and to havebrought all things into being out of nothing. To those again whocontend that there is a single ultimate element, whether it befire, air, or water, the words of Hippocrates are sufficientanswer, when he says, "If man were made of just one singlething he would never feel pain, for there would be nothing togive rise to pain if he were made of one thing only; while sup-posing that he were to feel pain, that one thing would cure it."6

For there to be pain there must be perceptible change. But ifthere was only one basic stuff of the body, there would benothing different into which it could change. And even if this

5 This reference, unlike the earlier ones to opinions of Apollinarius, mustbe to some lost and unnamed work by the heresiarch or under his name.It might be by one of his more extreme followers. But the way in whichit is here introduced suggests that Apollinarius had a great reputation inSyria as an exegete. We know from Jerome that Apollinarius was authorof a vast number of Scripture commentaries. Accordingly we may sup-pose, with probability, that the reference in this passage is to his (lost)Commentary on Genesis. Draseke {op. cit., p. 33) cites a passage frompseudo-Justin, Exhortation to the Greeks (which he vindicated as an apolo-getic work by Apollinarius), the sense of which comes very near to thatwhich Nemesius attributes to Apollinarius. Neither passage amounts toa denial of creation ex nihilo.

6 The citation is from an early part of the small work of Hippocratesentitled, On the nature of man, known to us through the fact that Galenappreciated it so highly as to write both a Commentary upon it and hiswork, On the elements according to Hippocrates, which, in the work, On theagreement of Hippocrates with Plato, Bk. vii, he describes as exegesis ofHippocrates, On the nature of man. This last work was a popular tract indefence of Hippocratean medical practice, with its developed pharma-cology. Hippocrates had to overcome the view that blood, or some otherone thing, underlay all health, so that, if anything went wrong with aman, it went wrong with all of him at once. Against this Hippocrates setforth his doctrine of the four humours, and their right balance in theconstitution, with the practical aim of defending the use of a variety ofremedies to correct disorder, according to its source. The bearing of hisargument upon the theory of the elements is the concern, rather, of hiscommentators, first Galen, and then Nemesius. Nemesius is not citingfrom the Commentary, but from the other work (ch. iii, p. 15, Helmreich)which refers to the element theories of Thales, Anaximines, and Heraclitusin a passage {op. cit., p. 23) which Nemesius expands. The argument whichfollows the citation is summarized from Galen, who underlines the factthat pain always points to deficiency, excess, or bad tempering.


stuff were sensitive, nevertheless it would not feel pain if itnever changed but always continued what it is. What suffersmust of necessity have something that is causing it to suffer.But if man's constitution consisted of only one element, it wouldcontain no quality at variance with the qualities of that oneelement. What would there be, then, to occasion suffering insuch a living creature ? And if it could neither undergo changeor be affected by any suffering, how could it feel pain? SoHippocrates, when he had proved the impossibility that itshould feel pain, made this concession, "supposing that he wereto feel pain, that one thing would also cure it."7 Now there is noone universal remedy for pain, but many remedies. Surely,therefore, man is not made of just one single thing.

Furthermore, with regard to the advocates of one basic ele-ment, the arguments with which each tries to establish his ownopinion go rather to demonstrate that there are four elements.For Thales says that water is the sole element, and tries to provethat from it derive the other three elements, saying that earth isits sediment and air its vapour, while fire is a rarefaction of air.Then Anaximines says that air is the sole element. He too triesto show, from the same arguments, that the other elements areproduced from air. Heraclitus and Hippasus the Metapontine,8

in making fire the sole element, used exactly the same argu-ments to prove, as they also claim, that the other elements arebegotten of fire. What they, and the advocates of water and air7 Galen, in the commentary, paraphrases thus: "If it be conceded that

anything could suffer from itself, its cure would then be simple." i.e., thatit should leave off making itself suffer.

8 The MSS read Hipparchus. Jaeger {op. cit., pp. 94-6) shows that thismisnaming of Hippasus in relation to this theme is so widespread thatits origin must be long before Nemesius. He is thus encouraged to thinkof Posidonius, Commentary on the Timaeus, as at once the direct source forNemesius and as the work in which the error first arose. For Thales andHeraclitus, see notes to Section 11.

Anaximines of Miletus, in the late sixth century B.C. taught that air isthe primary element, and that all material substances are forms of it invarying degrees of condensation. We may see in such monist theoriesthe keen desire of the primitive Greek thinkers to find a basic unityunderlying the sensible universe.

Hippasus, of Metapontum in the "instep" of Italy, belongs to the sameage, and was a member of the original Pythagorean discipleship. Hemoved, however, from Pythagorean orthodoxy in the direction of Hera-clitus, with whom he is accordingly bracketed. He conceived of the soulas being corporeal and of an igneous nature, because the body is warmwhen alive, and becomes cold when the soul departs. Hipparchus, anastronomer of the second century B.C., is quite inappropriate for citationin this context.


respectively, do succeed thus in proving is that all the elementsare transformable one into other. Now if they all turn one intoother, it follows of necessity that they are all equally elements,since whichever of the four you take, it will be found that it, too,is derivable from one of the others. Now the body, as being thesoul's instrument, has its various parts allotted to differentfaculties of the soul. For the body is well and aptly furnished toserve these faculties, lest any faculty of the soul should find thebody a hindrance. For to each faculty of the soul there has beenallotted its own portion of the body to be its means of action, asthis book will show, as it proceeds. We may say that the soul hasbeen given rank as craftsman while the body ranks as tool. Thesubject of craftsmanship is stuff, but the result is as the crafts-man makes it. (Suppose we liken the stuff to be worked upon toa woman; then what is done to it can be likened to adultery, orfornication, or honourable wedlock.)9

Now the faculties of the soul can be distinguished as imagina-tion, intellect, and memory, respectively.10

COMMENTARY

26. The theory of elements concerns man in his body. This sectionhas all the appearance of an unrevised draft, containing great

9 The argument of the last few sentences of the section is important andlogically coherent. Stylistically it is grotesque. The most plausible solutionis that we have here mere notes of the transition from the theory of theelements to discussion of the faculties of the soul, to which the saying ofHippocrates had pointed the way, and that an intended redraft neverfollowed. The sentence before the bracket has troubled all translators.Hyle (here translated "stuff") is anarthrous, and in antithesis with "result."From the context, praxis must mean craftsman's work. The comment inbrackets might be a gloss transferred to the text, and Matthaei, who callsit inept, would seem to take it so. But if we are right in taking the end ofthis section as a series of notes, we may conclude that it is a note for anargument, and by no means inept. The simile of the soul as a craftsmancalls for qualification. The soul's work upon the "stuff" of corporeal lifeis not merely aesthetic. It is moral. The soul can be irresponsible andsinful in the use it makes of its instrument, and in its relations with it asbody. The comment in the brackets is certainly to the point. But themanner of this conclusion to the section is certainly a possible indicationthat Nemesius died with his task unfinished.

10 It transpires as we go along that Galen had localized these three facultiesin the front, central and rear parts of the brain respectively. But he alsosaw that the ends of the sensory nerves joined the front of the brain.Nemesius' plan is therefore now first to deal with imagination, and showits close dependence upon the sense-organs, devoting a chapter to eachof the five senses before completing this part of the investigation of therelations of soul and body by chapters on intellect and memory.


changes of idea without any attempt to smooth the transitions.First the ecclesiastic doctrine of creation ex nihilo is set out, incontrast with Greek philosophic ideas of a material substrate,formless and eternal, upon which God imprinted form. Nextfollows a very interesting note on Apollinarian exegesis, whichindicates a road aJong which Apollinarius was able to approachso close to Gnostic dualism, and yet maintain a theoretical inde-pendence. This passage would be digression, were it not that itintroduces the theme of a single substrate underlying the fourelements as being one which is open to discussion, even onChristian presuppositions. This gives the cue for the really sig-nificant citation of the passage from Hippocrates, On the natureof man. Thence, by way of Galen's exegesis of this passage,Nemesius gains the conclusion that psychology and the elementsare subjects in mutual relation. And the section ends with ascrappy indication of the way in which this mutual relation is tobe developed. This will take place first under the heading ofwhat Nemesius calls the three faculties of the soul, imagination,intellect, and memory. But it proves to be the case that, throughthe material structure of the brain and sense organs, thesefaculties all involve differences or changes in matter. So, thetheory of the elements established, Nemesius turns next to thelocalization of faculties in bodily structures.

[M. 171.7-178.2.]

VI . Of the faculty of imagination

TEXT

27. Imagination,1 to take the first of the three, is a faculty of theirrational2 soul and acts by means of the sense-organs. A subjectfor imagination3 is related to imagining in the same way that asensible object is to perceiving. Imagining4 is an affection of theirrational soul caused by some subject for imagination. Anillusion5 is an idle stirring of the irrational parts of the soul, inthe absence of any subject for imagination.1 To phantastikon, imagination as a faculty.2 Nemesius will be found later to think of the irrational part of the soul as

divisible into that which can be brought under rational control, andthat which cannot. The seat of healthy imagination belongs to theformer. 3 Phantaston.

* Phantasia, a word in non-technical use. Stephanus gives meanings visum,visio, impressio animi. Nemesius' use, however, is clearly technical, for theprocess of making and relating mental images.

s Phantasma, phantom.


The Stoics use these four expressions, imagining, subject forimagination, imagination, and illusion, but they define imagin-ing as that affection of the soul which both displays itself andpoints to the subject for imagination by which it is occasioned.For, suppose we see something white. The soul is affected in aparticular way by receiving the impression of whiteness. And injust the same way that this sensation is aroused in the sense-organs when whiteness is perceived, the soul is affected when itthinks of whiteness; that is, by receiving within itself an imageof what it thinks of. And they define a subject for imagination assomething whereby the process of imagining is rendered percep-tible. For example, something white, or anything else with aparticular effect on the soul is subject for imagination. On theother hand they define imagination6 as an idle mustering ofimages divorced from any subject for imagination. And theythen define illusion as something that precipitates us into theidle mustering of images7 in our imagination, but in the waythat happens to people that have taken leave of their senses, orare suffering from an excess of black bile. Our difference fromthe Stoics is only that we make an interchange in the same setof terms.8 Now, as organs, the faculty of imagination has, first,the front lobes of the brain and the psychic spirit9 contained inthem, then the nerves impregnated with psychic spirit that pro-ceed from them, and, finally, the whole construction of thesense-organs. These organs of sense are five in number, butperception is one, and is an attribute of the soul.10 By means ofthe sense-organs, and their power of feeling, the soul takesknowledge of what goes on in them. The soul perceives any-thing earthy by means of its most earthy and altogether bodily

6 Phantastikon, used adjectivally, and not as a noun, as above. The Stoicsused it not very differently from the English "fantastic."

7 "Mustering of images," helkusmos; literally, a being carried away. Itclearly concerns mental imagery, but such as is undeliberate, though notnecessarily involuntary.

8 The interchange is in the Stoics making phantastikon mean what Nemesiusmeans by phantasma. Phantasma, for the Stoics, becomes a pathologicalterm.

9 With this sentence Nemesius returns to Galen from pseudo-Plutarch.Galen does not wholly free himself from the Stoic concept of corporealsoul pervading the body. He transforms it into this notion of psychic orintelligent "spirit" manifesting itself in parts of the organism, whilebeing generated within the brain.

*o See Domanski, op. ciL, p. 95, Note 2. The probability seems to lie on theside of Siebeck, that the emphasis is the Neo-Platonist emphasis on theunity of the soul as the subject of perceptions.21—c.j.


sense-organ, that of touch. It perceives anything bright bymeans of its most brilliant sense, that of sight. Likewise it per-ceives the vibrations of the air with its airy sense-organ.11 Forair, or the vibration of air, is the basis of sound. Moreover, thesoul apprehends flavours with its spongey and watery sense-organ, that of taste. For each object of perception is discernedby means of the sense-organ accommodated to it. If we followthis line of reasoning, therefore, seeing that there are four ele-ments, there must be four kinds of perceiving, answering to thefour elements.12 But vapour, and the whole range of scents, hasits nature intermediate between air and water, being grosserthan air but more subtle than water (that this, or somethinglike it, is the case is proved by the ailment known as a head-cold; for people with such colds inhale air in breathing but donot smell such scents as it bears, since, owing to the obstruction,the grosser portion of what they inhale never reaches percep-tion). Therefore a fifth sense-organ, that of smell, has been in-vented by Nature for this reason, that nothing capable of beingknown should evade our perception.

Perceiving is not undergoing any change, but is the discern-ing of some change that is taking place.13 For it is the organs ofsense that experience the change, while perception merely dis-cerns what is happening.

Nevertheless, the sense-organs are very often called by thename of the corresponding sense. Now sense-perception is theapprehension of sensible things. And yet this definition does notseem to define perception itself, so much as what it effects. Andthis is the reason that people have defined perception itself as anintelligent spirit reaching out from the soul's centre of authorityto the sense-organs.14 It has been defined, again, as the soul'spower of apprehending sensible things, while a sense-organ isdefined as an instrument for apprehending sensible things.

Plato calls sense-perception a co-operating of soul and body,15

directed towards the external world. The faculty belongs to the

u i.e., the ear, in which the end of the sensory nerve is reached by the air,through the ear-passage.

12 Since sight corresponds to fire, hearing to air, taste to water, and touchto earth. For this theory of the five senses, see On the agreement of Hippo-crates with Plato.

13 Agreement, vn. 6.14 In this sentence Nemesius, or Galen, conies as near as any ancient writer

to recognizing consciousness as a fact distinct from the subjects of con-sciousness.

15 On the opinions of the philosophers, iv. 8.


soul while a part of the body is the instrument. By means ofimagining,16 the two co-operate to apprehend external things.

Now of the soul's faculties, some are like servants and at-tendants, while some resemble rulers and governors.17 Thefaculties of thought and knowledge are of the ruler type, whilethose of perception, impulse and imagination18 are of theservant type. For, with the greatest promptitude, and almostinstantaneously, when movement is caused,19 it takes place inobedience to the intentions of the mind. For we both will andmove simultaneously and in the self-same moment, requiringno interval between intention and movement,20 as anyone maysee by moving his fingers. And some of the natural faculties arein subordination to the faculty of thought, and, in particular^those which we call the passions.

COMMENTARY

27. How imagination starts at the soul and reaches to the fourelements. For the movement from ch. v to ch. vi see Skard,JVemesiosstudien in {Symbolae Osloenses, Fasc. xix, pp. 46-7).

For this section, see Jaeger, op. cit. (Pt. I, ch. i, pp. 4-26), andDomanski, op. cit., pp. 92-99 (ch. viii). Nemesius defines fourterms relating to imagination. This is clearly in the Posidoniantradition, because it thinks of imagination as a faculty of thesoul aiding and explaining human behaviour; and is likely, forthis reason, to derive from a Neo-Platonic source. There followsa paragraph showing that the Stoics employ the same four wordsin a slightly different way from the Neo-Platonists. Domanskishows this fact to have been gathered by Nemesius from a pas-sage in Bk. iv, ch. 12 of the work On the opinions of the phil-osophers commonly bearing the name of Plutarch. The great

i* The sense seems to be that soul translates sense-impression into mentalimages, and subjects these to the operations of mind, the apprehendingof external things involving more than automatic reaction to sensation.

!7 This image has a long history in Greek psychological tradition, and isrepresented most notably in the Timaeus of Plato.

18/19 At these two points the reading of Matthaei's best MS is preferredto the text which he prints, for reasons given by Domanski, op. cit.9 p. 78,Note 2.

20 See Jaeger, op. cit., p. 26. Nemesius is here reproducing, but in a changedsense, phrases from an argument of Galen against the Stoics, who thoughtthat voice must have its impulses from the heart, since that organ isnear. Galen replies that the nerves carry impulses instantaneously to anydistance, so that nearness is not significant. Nemesius turns this im-mediacy of stimulus into an argument for the ascendency of the higherfaculties over the lower.


difference between the Stoic use and that of Nemesius is thatthe Stoics contrasted imagination, as subjective, with sense-perception, as objective, while Nemesius thinks of imaginationas having an indispensable function in the life of the rationalliving creature, man. The Stoic group can be attributed toAetius. The Neo-Platonic source cannot be named.

From definition, Nemesius goes straight to the physiology ofthe faculty, which, he says, enjoys use of the brain and sense-organs. Here, his guide is certainly Galen, and Jaeger, op. cit.pp. 13, 14, gives parallels to most that is significant in Nemesiusfrom Galen's work, On the agreement of Hippocrates with Plato. Therest he thinks to derive from the fundamental logical work ofGalen, his fifteen books On demonstration. It contained muchillustration from the medical field, and we have already seenthat it was known to Nemesius.

In this section Nemesius makes three points, (i) that thematerial of imagination is derived from sense-impression, (ii)that the process of imagining, while answering to rational con-trols, is effected by the irrational part of the soul, (iii) that it ispossible for it to be devoid of rational significance. In the courseof the discussion, starting from the soul as possessor of thefaculty, we are led by a continuous path to the four elements asdetermining the circumstances under which the work of imag-ination is done.

[M. 178.3-182.3/I

VII. Of sight

TEXT

28. The word sight is used in two senses, both for the mechan-ism of sight and the faculty of perception. Hipparchus1 says thatrays that extend from the eyes lay hold with their ends uponexternal bodies, as though grasping them with hands, andrender them perceptible by the sense of sight. Mathematicians,2

on the other hand, describe certain cones formed by the inter-section of rays proceeding from the eyes. For the right eye sends

1 The sentence is word for word from On the opinions of the philosophers, rv,13. Hipparchus of Nicaea, floruit, 146-126 B.C., was an astronomer andis credited with the invention of trigonometry.

2 It is not evident where Nemesius got this mathematical theory of vision,but it is much to the credit of his objectivity of approach to his subjectthat he includes this observation of the way in which the soul appears tobe at the mercy of a mechanical circumstance of vision.


rays to the left, and the left eye sends rays to the right, andthese, as they intersect, form a cone. It follows that, whereassight can cover a large number of objects at the same time, ithas precise vision only of what lies within the intersecting of therays. So it often happens that, gazing at the ground, we fail tosee the coin lying there that we are straining our eyes to the fullto see, until rays from both eyes light upon that portion ofground where the coin is lying. Then we suddenly see it, asthough at that moment we had just begun to take notice.

The Epicureans3 say that images of things that we see im-pinge upon the eyes. But Aristotle4 says that it is not a corporealimage, but something due to changes that take place in thesurrounding air, starting from the things seen and ending withour sight. Plato explains sight by concurrence of rays,5 the lightfrom the eyes, on the one hand, flowing forth a certain distanceinto the air which is by nature akin to light, while on the otherhand light is coming back from the visible objects, and extend-ing through the intervening air, which is easily passed throughand unresistant, to engage the fiery beams of sight. Galen, in hisseventh book On the agreement of Hippocrates with Plato, also agreeswith Plato in treating of sight, and makes the following observa-tions gathered here and there from that work.6

'Tor if some portion or power or image or quality from thebodies that we are beholding entered in at our eyes, we shouldnot know thereby the size of the object seen, even if it were, say,the hugest of mountains. For it is altogether against reason thatthe actual image of such an object should enter in at our eyes.7

We must consider, surely, that the spirit of vision is not suchthat we can accord it the extraordinary strength to encompasseverything that it beholds. It remains, therefore, that so long aswe are using our eyes, the surrounding air constitutes an instru-ment of our vision, equally with the optic nerve in our ownbody. For the atmosphere is wont to serve any such purpose,since, whenever a sunbeam but kisses the uppermost air, itcommunicates the sun's power to the whole atmosphere. Yes,and the eye-gleam borne along the optic nerve, containing as it

3 The Epicurean theory is that objects keep emitting very thin films whichcorrespond in shape and colour with the objects themselves and thatperception follows from the impact of these on the organs of sight.

4 Cited from Agreement, vn, 7.5 Cited from On the opinions of the philosophers, iv, 13.6 For the way in which this passage is derived from Galen, see Domanski,

op. cit., pp. 101-2, Notes.i Thus Galen disposes of the Epicurean theory.


does the substance of the spirit of vision,8 as it assails the sur-rounding air, works at the first onset a change, imparting itselfto the full, and yet conserving itself till it strikes some answeringbody.9 For the air, no less than the nerve from the brain,becomes the eye's instrument, to enable it to understandthoroughly the things it sees. Thus, as the brain is to the nerve,so is the eye to the air invigorated by sunlight. Inasmuch as theair is wont to assimilate itself to the bodies which it surrounds,it is plain that, given light, the air undergoes a change, inaccordance with the quality passing through it,10 according asthe thing it comes from is red, blue, or glittering silver,"

COMMENTARY

28. The mechanics of sight. In ch. vii, sight is taken, as the firstof the five senses to which we have been introduced by con-sidering the soul's faculty of imagination. It is put first, perhapsas being the most vivid sense, or because it offers the bestevidence of the soul's vitality reaching out to the surroundingworld through a sense. The chapter is in two sections. ForSection 28, see Jaeger, op. cit.y pp. 27-30 and Domanski, op.cit., pp. 99-102. The section is doxographic with the aim ofshowing the superiority of Galen's theory of vision to those ofhis precursors. It ends with a citation from Galen that trails offinto a loose summary extracted out of three chapters. Galenrecognizes an energy of the soul in looking, and conceives of a"spirit of vision" projected like a sunbeam into the air till itreaches its object of sight. No doubt the ancients, who creditedthe eye with so much power (as see their belief in "the evileye"), were moved by the sensations of encountering gaze,directing the attention, and focusing upon an object, to feelthat any purely mathematical theory of optics was insufficient.

8 Since the "spirit of vision" is supposed to dart from the eye like a ray,it is comparable with a ray of sunlight. So the air is the connecting mediumbetween sunlight, "eye-light," and the colour or gleam of objects, andsomehow the soul is enabled to interpret visual impressions in terms ofknowledge of surrounding things.

9 This seems to express the sensation of focussing upon an object at moderatedistance. It was taken to be a restraining of the ray of sight, as in theline of Herbert's hymn, "A man who looks on glass, on it may stay hiseye."

10 The puzzle was that colour seemed to be located in the coloured object.How could it get to the eye at a distance? Galen's answer is seen to bebut a modified form of the Epicurean answer, in this respect.


TEXT

[M. 1824-189.2.]29. Porphyry, in his work On sense-perception,1 says that

neither a cone of vision, nor an image, nor anything else, is thecause of seeing, but the soul itself, which encounters the objectsof sight and recognizes that it is what it sees, by virtue of thesoul embracing all things that exist, and of all different kindsof bodies being simply all-embracing soul. For, as he will haveit that there is one universal rational soul, he asserts accordinglythat this soul recognizes itself in everything that exists.2

Vision operates along straight lines, and, in the first place,perceives colours. Along with the colour, it recognizes3 thebody so coloured, its size, its shape, relative position and dis-tance away, together with the number of its parts, whether it

1 No such separate work of Porphyry is otherwise known. It is probable thatwe have here the sub-title of one book of the five On the soul, in answer toBoethius, of which we read in Eusebius, Theodoret, and Suidas. Nothingof this work survives.

2 This passage shows us that Porphyry had, in this work, developed acritique of the series of views resumed in Section 28, in that they all leaveunanswered the question, How does the soul interpret what it receivesthrough the senses? Domanski (p. 103, Note 1) cites Porphyry as sayingthat the soul "knows the principles of all things," so as to gather thesignificance of sense-impressions. But as Nemesius, from this passage on,withdraws from extreme Neo-Platonism, it is clear that the appeal toPorphyry here ends.

3 We have here the first reference to syndiaginoskein, "knowing by co-ordination of perceptions." Jaeger develops the significance of thisreference somewhat as follows: The dogma of Epicurus, that the sensesare the sole avenue to truth, while error enters by way of opinion,challenged a closer consideration of those experiences in which thesenses appear to tell us what is untrue. Among the Epicureans themselvesthere was already attention to such phenomena as the bent appearance ofan oar in the water, or the round appearance of a distant square tower.Posidonius represents the early stage of the return to Plato, carrying withit an acceptance, again, of the fallibility of the senses. Posidonius alsosought to reconcile the teaching of Aristotle with that of Plato. So theAristotelian doctrine of a single perception operating through the severalsenses was now replaced by the doctrine that the soul co-ordinates andinterprets the testimonies of the several senses. This is well representedin Galen's seventh book, On the agreement of Hippocrates with Plato, but notas fully as the theme is treated in Nemesius. In this book Galen refers tothe fact that he has dealt more fully with these subjects in his work, Ondemonstration, and in its fifth book. This work was not primarily physio-logical, but concerned itself with the problem of knowledge. Jaegerconcludes that this book is the source of the remainder of Section 29,after the Porphyry-citation.


is in motion or still, whether it is rough or smooth, even or un-even, sharp or blunt; as well as its constitution, whether, say,it is watery or earthy, moist or dry. According to this view, thespecial sense-object proper to sight is colour, since it is by sightonly that we apprehend colours.4 But hard upon colour followsperception of the body possessing the colour, the position inwhich the thing seen may chance to be, and the space or dis-tance between the person seeing and the object seen. For how-ever many senses share in taking cognizance of a body, the firstthing they combine to recognize is its position; for example,touch and taste,5 though, except under circumstances to bespecified later,6 these can only operate when the body they per-ceive is within reach. Sight, on the other hand, can operate alsofrom a distance. And since it receives its characteristic im-pression across an intervening space, it necessarily follows thatsight by itself can recognize the distance of its object, and, like-wise, the size of its object, provided that the object can beapprehended in a single glance. In those cases in which theobject is greater than can be apprehended in a single glance,sight has to call upon the aid of memory and thought. For inbeholding the object piecemeal, and not as one whole, sightmust, of necessity, travel from one part to another, and theobject of perception, as the gaze travels, is always limited tothe part upon which the gaze is falling. But memory keepsaccount of all that has been seen previously. Thought joins to-gether the two elements, what is being perceived, and what waspreviously perceived and is now retained in memory. Thus thereare two ways in which sight apprehends size, at one time un-aided, and at another, with the co-operation of memory andthought. As for a number of objects seen, when it exceedsthree or four, it is not taken in at a single glance, and as formovements and the shapes of many-sided things, sight never4 The doctrine that colour is the peculiar subject of vision began with

Aristotle. Nemesius (or Galen) takes it as the basis for underlining thepartial character of this sense. It will be noticed that Nemesius is, in thissentence, beginning to repeat what he has already said in the previoustwo sentences, either as his own paraphrase of Galen, or as adding asumming up to an introduction, both derived from Galen. The former isperhaps the more probable, as intended to drive home the point thateach sense has its own limited proprium within which alone it is inerrant.

5 The inclusion of taste here seems out of place, and the most probableexplanation is that Nemesius had before him a passage in which tastewas included with touch, but not in the context in which he has put themtogether.

6 i.e., where the range of touch is extended by using a staff.


apprehends these unaided, but always with the help of memoryand thought. For one cannot count five, six, seven, or moreobjects, without calling in memory to help. Similarly, the eyecannot, by itself, recognize a hexagon, octagon, or polygon ofa higher number of sides. Again when there is movement fromplace to place, the eye can take in start and finish. But if, toa first and second position, you add a third, only memory cankeep count of it. Above and below, undulant or plane, as,likewise, rough or smooth, and sharp or blunt, are qualitiesopen to perception equally by touch and sight, since these arethe only senses which recognize situation.7 But they employthought as well.8 For only an object that strikes a sense in onesingle impact is matter for unaided sense-perception. But thingsthat make a multiple impact call, not for unaided sense-per-ception, but for the co-operation of memory and thought, ashas been demonstrated above.

Sight is capable of penetrating transparent things to theirvery depth; first and principally the air, for that it penetrateswithout limit; and secondly water, when it is still and clear.For we actually see the fishes swimming in it. In lesser degree,it sees through glass, and other similar substances. Clearly thisall requires light to be shining through the media. And thatis the scope peculiar to sight.

But let no one be deceived into thinking that sight can per-ceive temperature,9 because when we see fire, we know at oncethat it is hot. For if you were to carry your mind back to thatpoint, you would discover that, then, when your eyes firstbeheld fire, they apprehended only the colour and shape of fire.But when touch joined in, we learned that it is hot, as well;a fact, gathered from the sense of touch, which memory retained.It follows that whenever we see fire now, we see only the shapeand colour of fire. But by the action of memory thought addsthe apprehension of heat to what we see.

The same thing takes place in seeing an apple. For if anapple makes itself known to us, not only by shape and colourbut by scent and flavour, as well, sight surely has no appre-hension of these latter qualities, to know that the object is an7 This shows that the inclusion of taste above (see Note 5) was not deliberate.

The statement fails to recognize the power of hearing and smell to locatean object of sense. In its bearing upon the inclusion of taste, above, itprovides another sign of the unrevised state of the draft.

8 Thought directs these senses how to investigate their object.9 Jaeger regards this passage as bearing the hall-mark of Galen's treatise

of logic and philosophy, the work On demonstration.


apple. The soul, however, retains a memory, alike of the smelland the taste, and in the very act of seeing the apple, it associatesthese qualities with the shape and the colour. When, then, wesuppose a wax apple to be a real apple, it is not sight that errs,but thought. For sight was not at fault, as regards its own sense-powers, since it registered shape and colour. There are thenthree senses, sight, hearing, and smell, that, with the air asintermediary, apprehend external objects out of actual contact.Taste does not operate except it can engage its object. Touchworks by both methods, either in direct contact with bodies,or indirectly, for example, by means of a rod.

Sight, then, sometimes needs the confirmation afforded byother senses, for instance, when the object has been deliberatelydevised to deceive sight, as is the case with a picture. For theaim of painting is to deceive sight, it may be by reliefs andhollows that have no real existence, if the subject lends itselfto perspective. Therefore, to detect a planned illusion, there isneed of touch, in the first place, and, in some cases, also oftaste and smell, as in that of the wax apple. At other times sight,acting by itself, represents its objects clearly so long as they arenot far distant, and then sees as round, if seen a long way off,10

what is actually a square tower. Sight errs again when we lookthrough mist or smoke11 or things of that sort that obscurevision. Looking through troubled water is similar. When onelooks at an oar in the sea it appears broken. Similar thingshappen on looking through some transparent substance, aslooking into mirrors,12 or glass,13 or anything else of that des-cription, or at an object violently agitated.14 For swift motionthrows vision out, so as to see as round, things that are notround, and as still, things that are rotating.15 Vision is thrownout, also, when the mind is preoccupied, as when someone setsout to meet a friend, meets him, and walks right past him,because his thoughts are on other matters. But this is notreally a failure of sight so much as of mind. For sight saw andgave notice, but mind would not attend to the notice given.

10 This was a classical example of aberration on the part of sight, arisingwithout the intervention of external causes,

n The mention of smoke is perhaps prompted by the distortion of visualshapes caused by hot air rising from a fire.

12 i.e., in a mirror, left and right are reversed.13 In glass and crystal, refraction takes place.14 A defined shape, when in such motion, is extended into the appearance

of a blurred surface.15 The reference would appear to be to a spinning top.


Sight needs four chief conditions for clear discernment, un-impaired organs, measured motion, moderate distance, and theair clear and light.16

COMMENTARY

29. The soul co-ordinates and interprets perception. (For this sec-tion, see Jaeger, op. cit., pp. 30-53; Domanski, op. cit., pp.103-107.) Nemesius has now reviewed the physics of sight, itsphysiology, mechanics, and geometry, and turns, in this section,to the psychology of the senses, as illustrated by this sense. Hegoes straight to the problem of the relationship between thepersonal subject and external objects maintained through thesenses, and its solution according to Neo-Platonist idealism asrepresented by Porphyry and his master Plotinus. But havingcited Porphyry, he draws back to the intermediate standpointof Galen, which acknowledges the responsibility of the soul formaking the best use it can of a team of servants (the five senses)of whom none is infallible or all-competent. The discussion ofthe subject at this level was, Jaeger thinks, to be sought inGalen's lost work, On demonstration, which Galen himselfregarded as his most fundamental work. And Jaeger gives to thissection an added importance as being the best surviving evidenceof the character of Galen's lost masterpiece.

[M. 189.3-195.7.]

VII I . Of feeling, or the sense oj touch

TEXT

30. The Creator devised each of the other sense-organs to bedual, and located each of them in a certain place and portionof the body; for he gave us a pair of eyes, a pair of ears, andtwo nostrils for smelling. Also, in every living creature heimplanted two tongues.1 In some creatures, for example,16 Thus, in the sense of sight, the soul has a servant liable to accidental

frustration. The soul cannot therefore trust itself to sense unreservedly,as the Epicureans advocated.

1 This dictum shows a surprisingly advanced knowledge of comparativeanatomy, outstripping Galen. There is unmistakable dependence uponGalen in the opening sentences of this chapter. The dual character of thesense-organs, and its relation to the nerves running from the two forwardlobes of the brain is treated by Galen in Bk. 8, ch. 10, On the use of theparts of the body. In Bk. 9, ch. 8, the tongue, as organ of taste, equally withthe eyes, ears, and nostrils, is noted as being served by dual sensory


snakes, the two tongues separate, and in others, as is the casewith men, the two are joined up and made one. For this reasonhe made there to be two ventricles in the front, only, of thebrain, so that the sensory nerves running from each ventricleshould constitute the sense-organs in pairs. It was of his abun-dant care2 that he made them in pairs, so that if either wereaffected, the other would be there to preserve that particularsense. Yes, and even if a living creature lose most of the sense-organs, it is no fatal detriment to life itself. But when feelinggoes, the living creature also perishes. Feeling, moreover, isthe only sense shared by all kinds of living creatures.3 For every

nerves. Galen describes a dissection of the tongue, leading to a view ofthe tongue as a dual organ, in his work, On anatomical manipulations, ch. 10.In Bk. 10, ch. 10 of On the use of the parts, Galen says, "The tongues ofcertain creatures, as, for example, snakes, are split in two, but in men(since it would be of no advantage to man to have the tongue split,either for eating or for speech) for good reason its parts are united, andcome together into the same organ." Galen, no doubt, supposed thatsnakes got some advantage from their split tongue. He may have followedAristotle, On the parts of animals, Bk. 2, ch. 17, and supposed the snake tohave the advantage of a doubled enjoyment of taste. Actually, however,the tongue of a snake is an organ of smell, rather than of taste. The endsof the flickering tongue, questing in the air, pick up scent molecules, andare then thrust into cavities in the roof of the mouth. The sensory nervesrunning from these cavities to the brain carry the report of what thetongue found in the air.

The independence of Nemesius relatively to Galen may be seen asfollows. Galen reaches the dual character of the human tongue by dis-section, and thinks of the snake's tongue as split. His view of either isteleological. Nemesius accepts what Galen gives, but has a view that isgenetic. There are two tongues, until and in so far as they are joined intoone. The magnificent generalization that thus appears in Nemesius musthave been reached by embryological studies. Galen was weak on em-bryology. Nemesius must therefore join to his knowledge derived fromGalen other knowledge derived from a source otherwise unknown to us.And we must conclude that, on medical questions, Nemesius carries inhis own head information beyond what he found in the pages of hisfavourite author. His debt, here, may be to the advanced anatomicalknowledge of the Alexandrine school of surgery. It is accordingly a falseestimate of our author that makes him just a stringer-together of copiedpieces.

2 The care of Nature for living creatures is a constant theme with Galen,who sees in it a proof of the Creator's wisdom. Nemesius gives the thoughta Christian tone by attributing care to the Creator himself. Chrysostomfrequently finds proof of God's care in the order of Nature. We maywonder how much Nemesius was responsible for establishing this themein the thought of Christian Syria.

3 This is an Aristotelian maxim. It may, nevertheless, have reached Nemes-ius by way of the pages of Galen.


living creature has feeling but, of the other senses, all creatureshave not the full number. Some creatures have only some ofthem. The more developed creatures have them all. Since,therefore, a living creature would be in jeopardy, whether itshould be or not be a living creature, in this matter of feeling,the Creator did not allot sensitiveness to one restricted part ofthe body, but spread the power of feeling over almost all theliving creature's body. For, if we except bones, horns, nails,gristle, hair, and some other things of the same kind, everypart of the body shares in feeling. It is the way with the sense-organs, therefore, to exercise two kinds of perception, one kindthat is peculiar to itself, and the other in feeling. We may seethis in regard to the eye. For it discerns colours, but also sharesin feeling heat and cold. This last it does simply as part of thesensitive body, while it discerns colours as the organ of sight.The case is similar with regard to taste, smell, and hearing.But if we say that perceptions are mediated by the frontventricles of the brain, how, it must then be asked, is feelingmaintained all over the body ? It should be clear that conscious-ness of feeling is due to nerves proceeding from the brain, andspreading into every part of the body. And seeing that it oftenhappens that, if a thorn pricks one's foot, the hairs of one'shead immediately stand on end, some have deduced that thepain, or feeling of pain, is carried up to the brain, and soperceived. But if that argument were correct, it would not bethe part pierced that smarted, but the brain. We should dobetter to say that the sensory nerve is brain. For, in a sense, itclearly forms part of the brain, as it has the vital spirit through-out itself, much after the manner that red-hot iron has firethroughout itself.4 Therefore, wherever a sensory nerve maylie, that part of the body derives feeling from it, and is renderedsensitive. And there would be no impropriety in saying thatwhat goes up to the head of the sensory nerve, and so to thebrain, is not the sensation itself, but a certain consciousness andreport of the sensation.

Objects of perception proper to feeling are such as are hot,cold, soft, hard, slippery, rough, heavy, and light; these thingsare recognized by feeling only. Feeling and sight have somecommon objects; as things sharp and blunt, rough and smooth,

4 Galen thought of the "vital spirit" as "distilled" in the front lobes of thebrain. His largely Stoic background is responsible for this simile, meantto explain how the powers of the soul are exercised throughout the body,through "vital spirit" being "conducted" along the nerves.


dry and wet, thick and thin, above and below. For positionalso can be the object of feeling; and size, if it is such as can becomprehended by one application of touch; so can closenessand looseness of texture, roundness (provided the object besmall) and various other shapes. In like manner, also, feeling,with the aid of memory and thought, can perceive a bodymoving in contact with it. It can perceive, also, number, butonly up to two or three objects, and then conditionally upontheir being small and easily taken hold of. But sight is moreeffective than touch, for these objects, as is the case with thingslevel and undulant, for that is a variation of smooth and rough.Undulant combined with hardness makes roughness, whileevenness and close texture makes smoothness. It is clear, then,from what we have said, that the senses work in with one anothera great deal. For one sense shows up the errors of another; forexample, in a picture the eye sees certain things as though theyprojected; let us say, a nose, or other things of that description.But when touch is brought to bear on these things, it convictssight of error.

Again, as sight always operates with the air as its medium,so likewise touch can use an intermediary, to wit, a staff, todiscriminate between hard, soft, and liquid; though this isan excogitated discernment, involving thought. For thiskind of perception belongs in the highest degree to man, who,indeed, has feeling and taste in higher degree than any otherliving creature. He is, however, behind them in the other threesenses. For one animal excels man as regards one of these threesenses, and another animal in another, but a dog excels himin all three at once. For a dog hears, sees, and smells morekeenly than a man, as can be seen when hounds are on ascent.

Now the whole body, as we said before, is a single sense-organ for feeling, but this applies in special degree to the innersurfaces of the hands, and even more to the finger-tips. Infinger-tips we have, as one might say, exact arbiters of feeling.For the Creator devised hands, not only as instruments fortaking hold of things, but also as the organ of touch. Thereforehuman hands have the tenderest skin, while all over them,muscle spreads under the skin. And so that they may be themore sensitive to touch, they have no hair on them. Again,the reason that no hair grows on them is the muscle thatspreads underneath. The harder the hand, the stronger itsgrip. The softer the hand, the more delicate its feeling. So, too,


hard sinews5 are the better suited for imparting motion, whilesoft nerve is the more sensitive. For nerves constitute the organof the sense of touch, since it is through them that sensitivityof feeling is exercised.

COMMENTARY

30. The sense of touch, and sensations of temperature and pain.In enumerating the five senses, it is usual to name the last as thesense of touch. The heading of this chapter might, accordingly,be rendered On Touch, were it not that the content of the chaptershows that Nemesius regarded pain, and sensitiveness totemperature, as within the scope of what he thinks of as thedistributed sense, by contrast with the senses located in circum-scribed sense-organs. In this, as in the theme which runsthrough chs. VI-XIII, that the body is the instrument of powersexercised by the soul, Nemesius is, no doubt, reproducing thethought of Galen. For this section, see Domanski, op. cit.,107-110. In the interests of apologetic, Nemesius opens thesection with a reference to divine providence, which the readeris left to keep in mind, and apply for himself, through chs.VIII-XI.

[M. 195. 8-200. 3.]IX. Of Taste

TEXT

31. We say that sight operates along straight lines leading fromvisible objects. In smell and hearing, perception is not limitedto a straight line, but is from all directions. Touch and tastediscover their objects neither along a straight line, nor fromanywhere, but only when their own appropriate objects ofperception make contact with them, except in the cases alreadynoted.1 Taste apprehends from juices. Its organ is the tongue,and particularly its tip; but reinforced by the palate, throughwhich spread nerves from the brain, carrying to the conscious-ness of the subject that apprehension of taste that is taking

5 The same word, neuron, means a sinew and a nerve. Physicians distin-guished them as hard neura (sinews) and soft neura (nerves). Nemesiusmeans that sinew is to nerve as a labourer's brawny fist is to a craftsman'sdelicate hand. He concludes that the sense-organ of feeling is the wholenervous system; a conclusion derived from Galen.

1 The only case mentioned seems to be that of extending touch by use ofa staff.


place. Now, of juices, the different tastes, as we call them, aresweet, sharp, tart, astringent, sour, bitter, salt, and oily. Theseare the things which taste discriminates. By comparison withthese qualities, water is said to be tasteless, in that it makesnone of these impressions upon the sense of taste. By comparisonwith qualities of another kind, however, such as being cold andwet, water has its own proper quality.2 Astringent differs fromsour in drawing up the mouth more sharply. Those that havebeen named are practically all the simple tastes, but they areblended in a thousand different flavours. Every kind of animaland herb has its own particular flavour. There is one taste ofpork, for example, and another of goats-flesh, so that we canrecognize, by the flavour, the kind of meat that we are offered,without being told. Such a thing would not be possible, ifeverything that we taste had not a particular flavour of itsown. No one, therefore, could name all these several flavours,since they are numberless, and yet quite different from eachother. Even in those flavours in which one of the elementaltastes predominates, the difference of individuality of theflavours can be discerned. In dried figs, raisins, and dates, theone predominant quality of taste is sweetness. Nevertheless, thepalate can distinguish their several flavours.

X. Of Hearing

TEXT

The sense of hearing perceives sounds and noises, and dis-tinguishes high notes from low, and soft from discordant andloud. The organ of hearing consists of the soft3 aural nervesfrom the brain, and the structure of the ears, especially thegristly portion, since gristle is particularly suitable, in connectionwith noises and sounds.4

2 This expression seems to attempt to say that though water has not aspecific taste, it has a refreshing character that is its own.

3 Anatomists still speak of "hard" and "soft5* nerves, and the aural nerveis distinguished as soft, in contrast with the nerve serving the facialmuscles which is hard. Thus the nomenclature by which the ancientsdistinguished nerves from sinews has transferred itself into the vocabularyof the neurologists.

* This observation was no doubt suggested by the resemblance of sinewsto the strings of a harp or lyre. Investigation of the structure of the middleand inner ear was so far advanced as to show that there was somethingresembling a minute musical instrument constructed of bones andcartilaginous membrane adjoining the end of the aural nerve.


Men and monkeys are the only creatures that do not movetheir ears, while all other animals that have ears move them.5

XL Of Smell

TEXT

Smelling is through the nostrils, but reaches the surface ofthe front ventricles of the brain. These surfaces are naturallymost akin to vapours, and so readily apprehend vapours. For,as wTe said before, each of the sense-organs apprehends its ownobjects of perception through a certain kinship and aptness forthem. The brain does not send down a sensory nerve,6 in thecase of the sense of smell, just as it does with the other senses.For the surface of the brain itself fulfils the office of the sensorynerves, and receives the giving forth of vapours. Now the mostgeneral distinction of vapours is into fragrant and foul, with,in between, what is neither fragrant nor foul. There is fragrancefrom bodies in which the humours are concocted in exactlythe right way, an indifferent odour where the constitution isaverage, and where it is inferior, or quite unsatisfactory,7 thereis an offensive odour.

COMMENTARY

31. The remaining three senses. This section, which the MSSbreak up into the three chs. ix, x, and xi, constitutes a some-what perfunctory completion of the survey, begun in Section28, of the senses, their organs, and their manner of working.Nemesius is, for the most part, composing loose summaries ofinformation derived from Galen. Domanski, whose interest isparticularly in the relation of Nemesius to Aristotle, notes thatit is Aristotle's list of tastes that Nemesius reproduces {op. cit.%p. i n , Note 3). He concludes his discussion of the contents ofthis section {op. cit., pp. m-114) with the suggestion that5 This observation is unmistakably from Galen, who appreciated the

physical nearness of monkeys to mankind. Aristotle noticed that menare singular in not moving their ears, but made no mention of monkeysin this connection.

6 Actually there is a system of olfactory nerves, but quite different fromany other part of the nervous system. The "threshold" where the sensorynerve-end joins the brain has a separate character for each sense, andthe ancients were right in thinking the sense-organs severally adaptedto their field of sensation. Skard, loc. cit., notes that Galen's work, On theorgan of smell, is Nemesius's source here.

7 Nemesius here reproduces an unusual telescoped word, medolos, meaning"not at all," which is a particular favourite of Galen.22—c.j.


Ncmesius is weaving together the ideas of some commentaryon Aristotle, On the soul, with those of Galen's Agreement ofHippocrates with Plato, as part of his general tendency to keepon the Aristotelian side of the Neo-Platonists. Skard, however{Nemesiosstudien iv, pp. 47-8), argues that the intermediary,wherever Nemesius draws upon Aristotelian matter, is somework of Galen. From the point of view of apologetic, in anage when the ascetic interest dominated Christianity, it isremarkable how completely Nemesius eschews the suggestionthat the senses are dangerous to the soul. The reader mightrather gather that they were created to minister to man's enjoy-ment as well as to guard his safety.

[M. 200. 4-207. 14.]

X I I . Of the faculty of intellect

TEXT

32. As regards the faculty of imagination, its possibilities andorgans, its subdivisions and what they have in common andwherein they differ, has been sufficiently, if summarily, treated,1

to the best of my power. As regards the faculty of intellect, onthe other hand, its subdivisions are judging, approving, re-futing, and essaying, while it expresses itself in recognition ofobjects, in virtues, in various kinds of knowledge and theprinciples of the several arts, as well as in deliberation andchoice.2 It is this faculty, also, which divines the future for usthrough dreams, a form of prognostication which the Pytha-goreans say is the only true form, following the Jews in this.3

The organ of the faculty of intellect is the middle part of thebrain and the vital spirit there contained.1 In ch. vi above.2 The method of analysis, here, closely parallel as it is to that in ch. vi,

points us to Galen, On demonstration. That Nemesius should be so briefin his extract suggests that he did not find Galen altogether satisfying asto the range of the faculty of intellect. He turns at once to another source,for authority to say that there is knowledge that finds no place in Galen'sdiagram.

3 This sentence presents us with difficult problems. The assertion that thePythagoreans recognized no prognostication otherwise than such as comesfrom dreams receives no support from elsewhere in doxography. But inOrigen, Against Celsus, i. 15, we have the statement that "Numeniusthe Pythagorean" said that Hermippus credited Pythagoras with de-riving his philosophy from the Jews. In the same work, iv. 51, Origensays that Numenius allegorized the Old Testament after the manner ofPhilo, an assertion which is confirmed by Porphyry [Cave of the nymphs,


XIII . Of the faculty of memory

TEXT

The faculty of memory is at once cause and storehouse ofremembering and recollection. Memory, says Origen,4 is animage left on the mind from perceiving something actuallytaking place. Plato calls memory the preserving of both im-pressions and notions.5 For the soul apprehends sensible objects

ch. 10), when he refers to a philosophic allegory of Numenius based onthe second half of the second verse in Genesis. And, as, early in thenext chapter, Origen is cited by name, we have good reason for suspectingthat Origen is the source from which this passage of Nemesius is drawn.We shall naturally think of the Commentary on Genesis, and particularly ofthe prophetic dream of Abraham in Gen. 15. The Church recognizeddreams and prophetic inspiration as the only legitimate forms of prognostic-ation, and so Origen might well be glad to claim the concurrence of "theJews" (by which formula he commonly means Philo) and "the Pytha-goreans" (having, quite probably, no ground for what he says beyondwhat he inferred from his reading in Numenius). Philo has a great dealto say about dreams. He recognizes that many dreams are not significantof anything but the waking preoccupations of the subject. But he holdsthat the soul, when freed by sleep from the harness of the body, found indreams an outlet for its inherent power of prevision. Most dreams,however, consist of enigmatic symbolism which calls for inspired inter-pretation. No doubt Numenius took over what he learned from Philo;for, as cited by Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, xiv. 8. 2, Numeniusrefers to a saying of Carneades that significant dreams are as like todreams without significance as real eggs are to wax eggs. It will be seen,however, that Nemesius fits Philo's idea of the power of prevision in-herent in the soul into his whole theory of intellect, and makes propheticdreaming a normal exercise of the faculty of intellect. Remembereddreams (like yawning) are an accompaniment of waking, when the soulis putting on its fleshly harness again. They consist of trains of imagesconstructed by the same brain-processes that serve discursive thought.If one can interpret these images, Nemesius seems to think, they containknowledge which the soul has had in the timeless and intelligible worldthat is its true home. Thus, in dreams, it is the faculty of intellect, ac-cording to Nemesius, that ministers a knowledge of the future; a thesisthat takes on a strangely modern air if we turn to Mr. J. W. Dunne'sExperiment with time, and his claim to have found that *'the faculty ofprecognition is a normal characteristic of man's general relation to time"(p. 91, 6th edn.).

4 Jaeger argues that this is not the Alexandrine Father but another Origen,a Neo-Platonist philosopher of the same period of whom we have somescanty information. But see Note 5.

5 Ch. XIII falls into two halves, the second being clearly drawn from Galen,and this first half being a psychological discussion that has, as Jaegersays, a Neo-Platonist ring. He credits Porphyry with being the source ofthis argument, and yet finds himself speaking of the "Origenism" of


by means of the sense-organs, so as to form an opinion aboutthem. But intelligible things the soul grasps directly with themind, and thereby forms a notion. When, therefore, the soulpreserves an imprint of things either felt or thought, it is saidto remember. When Plato speaks of a notion in this connectionhe probably means not a notion in the strict sense6 but some-thing thought out. For things of sense are the direct subject ofmemory, but intelligible things contingently so, since a memoryof thoughts is brought about by the images which are theirprerequisite.7 Of notions in the strict sense we can only havememory if they have come to us by our learning them or hearingof them. They are not matter for memory in themselves. Forthe apprehension of intelligibles does not come from any priorprocess of imagining, but either from learning or by intuitiveunderstanding.8

Again, when we are said to call to mind something we for-merly saw, heard, or otherwise came to know (the word"formerly" having reference to time past), it is clear that whatwas recalled was something that came and went at a certainpoint of time. Memory, then, is of things no longer present,and it is certainly not caused by those past events them-

Nemesius. We know, from Origen's Commentary on St. John's Gospel(Bk. xx, ch. 7) that he believed that souls bring into their embodied lifelearning which they have received in their previous existence in theintelligible world. He is thus sufficiently "Neo-Platonist" to have suppliedthat tint to the passage of Nemesius that we have before us. The Com-mentary on Genesis must have drawn Origen so far on to the ground troddenby Philo that a discussion of recollection of pre-natal knowledge may wellhave found a place there. In our passage of Nemesius, however, there isvisible also the influence of Aristotelian dialectic, and there is a referenceto the Epicurean emphasis on "opinion" as the fruit of sense-impression.And these things would suggest the influence on our author of Galen,On demonstration. It is, in fact, the synthesis of different traditions whichNemesius achieves in this passage which exhibits most favourably aquality of his thinking.

<s The distinction which Nemesius here draws between dianoesis (discursivethinking) and He kyrios noesis (the instantaneous knowing of truth,without discursive thinking, or "notion in the strict sense") is not foundin those terms elsewhere.

7 Thus, one does not remember beauty. What one does is to recall imagesthat are beautiful, together with, it may be, discursive thought expendedon analysis of these images, in quest of a concept of beauty.

8 We seem to have here a critique of Plato's Philebo with a view to makingPlato's use of anamnesis (recollection) in connection with the ideas acatachrestic use of the word, and to show that the way in which intuitiveunderstanding establishes itself as conscious knowledge is distinct fromrecollection.


selves.9 When memory has been interrupted by forgetting,and the faded memory is recreated, we name it recollection.

Forgetting is a casting-ofF of memory, sometimes for ever,and sometimes for a certain time, after which comes recollec-tion. There is, however, a different kind of recollection, wherethe forgetting is not of anything felt or thought, but a recollectionis made proceeding from intuitive understanding; and by thatwe mean notions that are present in every man without havingbeen learned, like the notion that there is a God. Plato saysthat we have such a recollection of the ideas. (What an ideais we shall say later on.)10

So, then, the faculty of imagination hands on to the facultyof intellect things that the senses have perceived, while thefaculty of intellect (or discursive reason) receives them, passesjudgement on them, and hands them on to the faculty ofmemory.

The organ of this faculty is the hinder part of the brain(called also cerebellum and hinder-brain)1 * and the vital spiritthere contained. Now, if we make this assertion, that thesenses have their sources and roots in the front ventricles ofthe brain, that those of the faculty of intellect are in the middlepart of the brain, and that those of the faculty of memory arein the hinder brain, we are bound to offer demonstration thatthis is how these things work, lest we should appear to creditsuch an assertion without rational grounds. The most convincingproof is that derived from studying the activities of the variousparts of the brain. If the front ventricles have suffered any kind

9 Objects of sense are the immediate cause of images in the mind. But thiscausality ends with the moments of sense-impression, and when memoryrevives such images, it owes nothing to fresh causality proceeding fromthe objects.

!0 This promise is never fulfilled. It is no way obvious how it couldfit in with the purpose of the work to return to this theme. The sentencein brackets may really belong to Galen, On demonstration. But the sentenceis, in any case, another indication of the unrevised state of the draft.

11 With this sentence we return to Galen, in his character of medical writer,and to his work, On the use of parts of the body (see Section 30, Note 1).The word for hinder-brain (pericranis) is not found elsewhere in literature,and may be a term orally current among the physicians of Nemesius'time and country. It is an indication that Nemesius does not hangentirely upon Galen's books, but that, rather, his deep interest in thesubject of the human body had made him so earnest a reader of Galen.

Modern studies have shown that, while accident to the cerebellumhas the effect that Galen says it has, his conclusion that memory can beso strictly localized is unjustified. Memory depends upon the concertedaction of different parts of the brain.


of lesion,12 the senses are impaired but the faculty of intellectcontinues as before. It is when the middle of the brain is affectedthat the mind is deranged, but then the senses are left in pos-session of their natural functions. If the front ventricles and themiddle of the brain are affected together, both thought andsensation break down. If it is the cerebellum that is damaged,only loss of memory follows, while sensation and thought takeno harm. But if the middle of the brain and the cerebellumshare in the damage, in addition to the front ventricles,sensation, thought, and memory all founder together, with theresult that the living subject is in danger of death. Apart fromlesions, these facts are in evidence in several other maladiesand accidents, particularly inflammation of the brain. For wemeet with patients suffering from that disease whose senses allwork, and only their mind is deranged. Galen describes sucha case,13 of a man suffering from inflammation of the brainwho was in a room, with a weaver working there. This manstarted up and took hold of some glass vessels, and running toa window he demanded of the passers-by whether they wouldlike him to throw down such and such a glass vessel, namingeach correctly. When some stopped and said that they would,he first threw the vessels down, one by one, and then asked thosewho were there whether they would like the weaver throwndown. Some of them, taking the whole thing for a joke, said,Yes. The man thereupon took and pushed the weaver out, anddown he went!

Now this man's actual senses were in perfect order, for hecould distinguish the glass vessels, on the one hand, and theweaver, on the other. What was deranged was his mind.

There are other cases where people fancy things that arenot there, and think that they see things that in fact they donot, while being otherwise quite rational. These are people withlesions of the front ventricles only, while the middle part oftheir brains remain unaffected.

The working of any and every part of the organism isimpaired by whatever ills affect it. For the living subject isthe worse as regards the activity for which the affected part

12 These observations on lesion seem to bespeak an extensive experienceof head-wounds. Gladatorial fighting may have given Galen his oppor-tunities, during his residence in Rome, from which he also gathered thenon-traumatic "case" that follows.

13 Domanski, op. cit., Note 3 to p. 90, gives the passage from Galen, On partsaffected, iv. i.


was naturally fitted; anyone with a bad foot, for example, canonly limp, since walking is the foot's work.14

COMMENTARY

32. The mechanism of mind and its supernatural aspects. The twochapters forming this section are intimately bound together insubject-matter, as they are with ch. vi, and complete the pro-gramme announced at the end of ch. v. For the contents of thesection we have studies by Jaeger, op. cit., pp. 54-67 (Pt. I,ch. iii) and Domanski, op. cit., pp. 80-92 (reviews of the twochapters).

While these two chapters are hardly more than very con-densed notes strung together, the argument is both importantand profound. The key to the argument is the fact thatNemesius, who no doubt accepts the condemnation of Origen,is so far Origenist as to believe in a modified pre-existence ofsouls, and to attach to that belief a modified form of thePlatonic doctrine that souls possess a recollection of things theylearned in the intelligible world before they were united tobodies. He does not reject the Platonic doctrine of ideas, thoughhe shows no special interest in it. What he is interested in, andthinks the soul has brought with it into this world, is the intui-tive understanding of a number of fundamental notions, whichhe calls "notions strictly so called," and instances the notionof there being a God.

In contradistinction to these notions is the body of knowledgeand thoughts built up by discursive thinking (dianoia). Thefaculty of intellect is concerned with both the one and the other.The notions become the conscious possession of the livingsubject by the action of this faculty, the subject sometimesreaching this consciousness unaided, but often helped to do soby communications received from others; though the authorityof such notions does not lie in the fact that all men agree inthem. It is a supernatural authority, due to their being im-planted in the soul itself. The faculty of intellect is simply thechannel through which they come to embody themselves asconscious elements of thought (noeseis).

The more general activity of the faculty of intellect is to usethe threefold instrument of the brain to carry on the process of

14 To Nemesius' chapter this is a lame ending. But on Galen's page itfigured as a determined insistence that students shall view mentalmalady in strict analogy to the affections that impair the use of otherparts of the body.


discursive thinking. Thereby the soul becomes possessed ofgrowing empirical knowledge through contact with the ex-ternal world and with society. All activities of the faculty ofintellect unite for the one end of furnishing the soul with theknowledge which it needs for the fulfilling of its destiny.

[M. 208.1-210.7.]

X I V . Of thought and expression

TEXT

33. The above, then, is one way of analysing our psychology,namely, in respect to its correspondence with certain parts ofthe body. With regard to the rational part of the soul, anotherand different analysis may be applied, dividing it into what wemay term pure thought, and expression. Pure thought is amotion of the soul that takes place in the rational mind, withoutany kind of utterance, whereby it often happens that, in com-plete silence, we deal exhaustively with a whole subject in ourminds. In dreams, also, we discourse.1 It is particularly in re-spect of this inward motion of the soul that we are all rationalcreatures. It is more so, in this, than in our powers of expression.For people who were born dumb, or those who have beenrendered voiceless by accident or disease, are, none the less forthat, rational. The activity of rational expression is by means ofthe voice, and of some form of language. The organs of voiceitself are complex. There are first the intercostal muscles andthe whole chest. Then there are the lungs, the windpipe, andthe larynx, and of these particularly the cartilaginous part. Thevocal cords,2 the glottis, and all the muscles that move theseparts, are the organs of vociferation. On the other hand, themouth is the organ of articulation, since, by the mouth,language is (metaphorically speaking) moulded, fashioned, andshaped. Comparing speech with a harp, tongue and uvula playthe part of the plectrum, and the roof of the mouth that of1 Again we have expression of Nemesius' remarkable conviction that we,

and not some external agent, are the makers of our dreams.2 Literally, "the sinews that run back." With the construction of a laryngo-

scope, the vocal cords could be observed closing together in vocalization,and retracting when vocalization ceased. "Retracting sinews" is a moreaccurate and scientific description than "vocal cords." As the end of thischapter indicates, early thought about vocalization was dominated bycomparison with a stringed instrument. Skard, Nemesiosstudien IV, p. 49,notes that Galen claims to have coined the term "retracting sinews."


sounding-board, while the teeth, and the extent to which themouth is opened, fulfil the part played by the strings. To someextent, the nose contributes to pleasant or disagreeable utter-ance, as is evident with those that sing.

COMMENTARY

33. How rational mind finds expression. In the foregoing chap-ters, Nemesius has expounded how the brain works. He washere following Galen, expressing the results of Greek medicalscience at its most advanced. In ch. xiv, he turns back tosomething much more ancient, the Stoic psychology of intro-spection. The foundation of this was the recognition that whatsense a man talks depends on what sense he has in his head. Soa distinction was drawn between the faculty of rational thought,as it resides within the rational creature, containing indefinitepotentiality, and the art of giving ordered and purposeful ex-pression to what is in the mind. The chief part of the art ofexpression is language. And at this point the medical interestsof Nemesius gain the upper hand again. There is the prac-titioner's observation that where speech has ceased to be pos-sible, or even where it has never been possible, evidence can beseen of the presence of rational mind, on a par with that of themore fortunate. Finally, there is the anatomist's interest in themechanics of speech.

[M. 211.1-213.9.]

XV. A further way of dividing the soul

TEXT

34. Some divide the soul in another way, into its faculties,forms, or parts, namely into the vegetative (also called self-nourishing and sensitive), perceptive, and rational. What arethe organs of each of these parts is either already told,l or willbe described later on. Zeno the Stoic2 says that the soul has1 The organs that have been dealt with are those of sense, thought, and

expression. In chs. xxv-xxvin will be treated the organs of the bodilyvital processes.

2 Zeno, a native of Cyprus, born 336 B.C., founded the school of philosophyat Athens which took its name from the Stoa, or Pictured Porch, wherehe lectured. He combined principles derived from Heraclitus with theSocratic tradition prevailing at Athens. The soul, according to the Stoics,extends spatially through the whole body. Seated in the sense-organs,it exercises its five faculties of sense, while it has a "directing part"generally thought of as seated in the heart. For this doxography, seeOn the opinions of the philosophers, iv. 4.


eight parts, and divides it into the directing mind, the fivesenses, the faculty of speech, and the generative powers. Thephilosopher Panaetius,3 on the other hand, would say that thepower of speech belongs to impulse, a most clear-sighted dis-tinction,4 and that the generative powers are not part of thesoul at all, but are Nature working in us.5 Aristotle asserts,6 inhis Physics,1 that the soul has five parts, vegetative, perceptive,locomotor, appetitive, and intellectual. He says that the vegeta-tive part is responsible for nutrition, growth, and procreation,and for the fashioning of our bodies. He calls the vegetativefaculty also the nutritive, as naming the whole faculty from itsmost important function, that is, nutrition, on which the otherfunctions of the vegetative faculty all depend. That, I say, is

3 Panaetius, 180-108 B.C., Stoic philosopher from Rhodes, was the firstto introduce Stoic philosophy to the west, when he went to Rome incompany with Scipio. He was later head of the Stoic school at Athens,while his pupil Posidonius continued to influence the west, especiallythrough Cicero and Seneca.

4 The reason that Nemesius approves of the advance of Panaetius on theopinion of Zeno on the faculty of speech is that he regards impulse,like imagination, as something that belongs to the soul at both therational and the irrational level. Speech is not automatic but voluntary,and so is a particular, highly rational, application of impulse.

$ This opinion commends itself to Nemesius because he is, in regard to thenature of the soul, a creationist and not a traducianist. If the generativefunction is no part of the soul, the traducianist has not a leg to stand on.

<s Domanski, op. cit., p. 74, tabulates the psychology of Nemesius thus:

The Soul

Rational IrrationalI I

I I I I IThought Memory Imagination Susceptible Uncontrolled

I I IImagination Anger Concupiscence

I IThe appetites Pulse and

breathingDomanski argues that it is predominantly an Aristotelian scheme.

7 Nemesius does not mean the work usually so entitled, which does notdeal with psychology, but the work On the soul, where the division herementioned is in Bk. II, ch. iii.


what he says in his Physics. But in his Ethics* he divides the soulinto two primary and general categories, rational and irrational.The irrational he sub-divides again into that which obeysreason and that which is not answerable to reason. Enough hasbeen said in our foregoing chapters about the rational part ofthe soul.9 We will next discuss the irrational part.

COMMENTARY

34. A survey of psychotomies completed. Nemesius is here round-ing off what he has to say about the faculties of the consciousrational soul, before passing to the involuntary or unconsciousaspects of our life.

[M, 213.10-218.8.]

X V I . Of the irrational part of the soul, also called the passions

TEXT

35. Some say that the irrational in us is a thing by itself, so thatan irrational soul exists which is not part of the rational soul;in the first place because, in the irrational beasts, it is found byitself, whence it is clear that it is a complete entity by itself andnot part of something else; and secondly because it would bemost paradoxical that the irrational should form part of ourrational soul.1 Aristotle, on the other hand, affirms that theirrational not only belongs to but is a faculty of the soul.8 Nicomachean Ethics, I . 13.9 In Section 27, Nemesius has mentioned imagination as a faculty of the

irrational soul. This is justified by the fact that there can be involuntaryand pathological imagination. At the same time, there is imaginationbidden and guided by the rational mind. Accordingly, Nemesius is ableto say that in dealing with imagination, intellect, and memory he hasbeen talking about the rational part of the soul.

Margarites Evangelides, Zwe^ Kapitel aus einer Monographie uber Nemesiusund seine Quellen (Ph.D. dissertation, Berlin, 1882) begins his discussionat this point. He argues that the reference back, here, is to the lastparagraph of the first half of ch. xin, and that there is no reconciliationwith the assignment of imagination to the irrational soul, made in Section27. The inconsistency, Evangelides thinks, has arisen inevitably in theattempt to unite an Aristotelian psychology, based on the heart, withthat of Galen, based on the brain. He admits that reconciliation is easy,if we regard imagination as a connecting link between the rational andirrational parts of the soul.

1 These two arguments are those of Numenius, who differentiated ananimal soul, that perishes with the body, from an immortal rational soul.Nemesius does not refute them, but restates the Aristotelian psychology ofthe third book of the Nkomachean Ethics.


Further, as we said, he divides it into two, but couples bothunder one common title, appetite.2 From appetite proceeds themovement of impulse. For yearning starts movement; that is,when living creatures are impelled by yearning, they proceed atonce to a movement of impulse.

The irrational in us is partly not susceptible to reason, andpartly obedient to reason. Furthermore, the part that obeysreason divides in two, that is, into the passions of concupiscenceand anger.3 Concupiscence, which is roused by things that weperceive, has the liver as its organ, while the organ of anger isthe heart, a tough member, apt for strenuous movement,ordered for hard service and sudden onsets. In like manner theliver, a soft entrail, is fitting organ for soft4 concupiscence. Thesetwo passions are called obedient to reason because, in men wholive in harmony with nature, it is in the nature of these passionsto obey reason, submitting or rousing themselves just as reasoncommands. Moreover, these passions are necessary componentsof a living creature, for life could not endure without them.But since the word "passion55 is ambiguous, we must next re-solve the ambiguity. Passion is used to mean bodily suffering,5

such as comes from sickness or wounds. Equally it is used forpassions of the soul, as in our present discussion where it isapplied to concupiscence and anger. In a broad and generalsense, however, passion, in a living creature, is whatever causesit either pleasure or grief. For, say that passion causes grief;nevertheless, the passion is not itself grief. If it were, whateversuffers anything must also feel grief. Now things without per-ception suffer (blows, it may be), but do not feel grief. So,clearly, the feeling of grief is not identical with suffering, butlies in perceiving what is suffered, and must be marked enoughto call attention to itself. This, then, is a definition of passions2 Orektikon. See the second half of Domanski's first note to p. 74, op. cit.,

where he argues against this being an opinion of Aristotle. The preferablereading would make this the opinion of Nemesius, and we should sub-stitute "they are coupled" for "he couples." Appetite, for Nemesius,operates at two levels, as instinctive wishing or not wishing, or as thedeliberate seeking of a satisfaction.

3 Thumikon, which no one English word will render. The emphasis is moreon courage and combativeness, than on the unpleasantness of anger whichpredominates in the English word.

4 Soft in the sense of tender, easily hurt. While courage holds mischancesat bay, concupiscence is exposed to them.

5 Pathos, the Greek word for passion, need mean no more than an object"suffering" some fortuity, and does not necessarily imply feeling, as theEnglish word does.


of the soul: passion is a movement of the faculty of appetite uponperceiving an image of something good or bad. Another defin-ition is: passion is an irrational movement of the soul due toapprehending something good or bad. But, in a wider sense ofthe word, the definition is: passion is any change induced inone thing by another.6 Activity, on the other hand, is energeticnatural movement. Anything called energetic is self-moving.Thus, then, anger is, on the one hand, activity on the part ofour warlike spirit, and, on the other, is something suffered byboth parts of the soul, as well as by our whole body when angerdrives it forcibly to corresponding acts. In this event, we havechange in one thing caused by another, which accords with ourgeneral definition of passion.

There is another way of speaking,7 according to which ac-tivity is called passion if it goes contrary to Nature, for, in thissense, activity means movement that accords with Nature,while passion is movement that is contrary to Nature. Accord-ing to this way of speaking, activity that does not accord withNature is called passion, whether self-originated or provoked,so that normal heart-beat is activity, but palpitations arepassion.8 It is no wonder, therefore, if the same happeningshould be described both as activity and as passion. For in asfar as movements spring from the part of the soul where passionresides, they are in that sense activities, but in as far as they areinordinate and unnatural they are not so much activities aspassions. So, then, according to either meaning of the word,passion is a movement of the irrational soul. Not every move-ment of the part of the soul where passion resides is called apassion, but only the more marked and those which attractattention. A slight and unperceived movement is not calledpassion, since, to be a passion it must be of noticeable magni-tude. Therefore we must add to the definition of a passion thatthe movement is perceptible. For slight movements, escapingnotice, do not, as we said, constitute passion.9

^ The argument, from here on, is taken almost word for word from Galen,Agreement vi. i. (See Domanski, op. cit.> p. 116, Note 1.)

7 This is the Stoic approach, where correspondence with Nature is theethical aim. In as far as passions are irrational, in the sense of trans-gressing reason, they are contrary to this aim.

8 The Stoics might call courage in battle an activity, but bad temper athome a passion. That Nemesius, instead, takes an illustration from physicalhealth comes from following Galen.

9 The quantitive clause comes again from Stoic ethics, which aimed ata rational apathy, attainable only in a broad way.


COMMENTARY

35. The concept of passion. The subject of the human passions,introduced in this chapter and section, opens a new stage in theargument of Nemesius. For, consideration of passion introducesthat also of pain and pleasure, and so brings us to what had beena subject of age-long controversy among the philosophers, andone towards which Nemesius, as a Christian, is bound to takehis own stand. From Aristippus of Cyrene, disciple of Socrates,and leader of a school from the beginning of the fourth centuryB.C., until Epicurus at its end, a succession of philosophers triedto identify, in some way, the good with pleasure. Against themother and greater thinkers asserted that pleasure is not an un-qualified good, and is in fact often inseparable from evil. Platotended to regard pleasure of the mind in things aesthetically orintellectually admirable as the only pleasure that is an un-qualified good. Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics demonstratedthat pleasure serves the purpose of a stimulus to progress invirtue, and so claimed that the good, in pleasure, is to be esti-mated in relation to the ends which it promotes. Epicurusequated good pleasure with ataraxy or peace of soul, and ex-pected a life of virtue to be the indispensable condition thereto.Such, in brief, is the controversial field, known to his readers,upon which Nemesius is now entering, and on the side of themoralistic philosophers. And accordingly he lays down as basisfor his moral theory, what is, once more, an amalgam of thepsychology of Aristotle with that of Galen.

[M. 218.9-220.7.]

X V I I . Of concupiscence

TEXT

36. We said, then, that that irrational part of the soul which issusceptible to reason is divisible into the two passions of con-cupiscence and anger. Again, concupiscence divides into two,that is, into its pleasures and griefs. When fortune favours ourdesire, it ministers pleasure, but when it frowns, it causes grief.

There is again another division of desire, to make four differ-ent forms, inclusive of desire itself.l For seeing that all existing* That is to say, one of the four divisions has no other name than desire.

As appears presently, the four forms are desire, pleasure, fear, and grief.Hence the subject headings of chs. XVII, xvin, xix and xx. From the"some folk" who advocate this fourfold division—and they may well be


things are either good or bad, and some of them are ready athand, and others are yet to come, we may, by following thisclue, multiply two by two, and distinguish four forms of desire.There are good and bad, and each is either present or to come.For expecting good is desire, pure and simple. Good, whenpresent, is pleasure. The expectation of evil is fear, and itspresence, grief. So pleasure and desire are centred on what isgood, and fear and grief on what is evil. And this is why somefolk divide this passion2 into these four forms, desire, pleasure,fear, and grief. And when we use the words "good" and "bad,"it is either because the things are really so, or because we thinkthem so. The evil passions3 arise in the soul in these three ways;from a bad upbringing, from perversity, or through a poor con-stitution. For unless we are brought up well from childhood,and taught to govern our passions, we end by indulging themwithout restraint. From our perversity, again, false judgementsget rooted in the soul's reasoning faculty, so that bad things aretaken to be good, and good for bad. Certain consequencesfollow, also, from a poor bodily constitution. For spleneticpeople are testy, and those of a hot moist temperament arelecherous. But an evil tendency must be cured by acquiringgood ways. Perversity must be cured by schooling and know-ledge. But a poor physical constitution is matter for the doctor,who must win it over, as far as is possible, to normal tempera-ment, by suitable diet, by exercise, and, should these be neces-sary, by the use of drugs.

COMMENTARY

36. The cure of temptations arising from the passions. The chapterdoes not really answer to the chapter-heading. Nemesius doesnot, like an Augustine, see in concupiscence a prime conse-

the Epicureans—Nemesius derives nothing but a way of breaking up hissubject. He could not accept their identification of evil with fear andgrief.

2 The Stoics said "the passions" (see Domanski, op. cit., p. 119, Note 2).The limitation to concupiscence may well not be original with Nemesius.

3 These "evil passions" are clearly not fear and grief, as we might havesupposed from what has immediately gone before. They are inordinatepassion; plural because gathered under the two heads of concupiscenceand anger, and evil when destructive of the good life as judged byChristian standards. Nemesius makes a fresh start, at this point, andbegins to express his own convictions as to the principles which shouldguide the cure of souls. The pastor must value education and hygiene,as well as direct moral discipline. This wise and liberal ethic, at home infourth-century Syria, was hardly so elsewhere.


quence of the Fall, but rather, like the Stoics, as evil only whena disturber of the good life.

[M. 220.8—223.15.]

XVIII. Of pleasures

TEXT

37. Some pleasures are of the soul and some of the body, ofwhich the former, such as the pleasure of acquiring knowledgeand that derived from contemplation, affect the soul in itself.For these pleasures, and their like, belong to the soul alone.Bodily pleasures are those shared between soul and body. Thereason why they are called bodily is that they turn on things toeat and drink and on sex relations. There are, however, nopleasures, but only things endured, such as cuts, discharges, andfaults of temperament, that are restricted to the body alone.For all pleasure is conscious, and we have shown that percep-tion belongs to soul. It is plain, moreover, that pleasure is aword that is used in many different senses. Pleasures are ofopposite kinds. Some are noble and some are base, some falseand some true. The pleasures of knowledge belong to the mindalone, while pleasures of sense involve the body as well. Ofthese last, some are natural and other unnatural. And whereasthe suffering of thirst is balanced against the pleasure derivedfrom drinking, there is no counterpoise to the pleasure of con-templation. So these considerations all show that pleasure is anequivocal term.

Of the pleasures called bodily, some are both necessary andnatural, and without them life would not be possible; for ex-ample, the pleasures of the table, which bring satisfaction to ourneed, and the pleasure from clothes which we have to have. Onthe other hand, there are pleasures that are natural but notnecessary, such as normal and legitimate marital intercourse.For this accomplishes the preservation of the race as a whole,and yet it is quite possible to live in celibacy without it. Againthere are pleasures that are neither necessary nor natural, suchas drunkenness, lasciviousness, sordid love of money, and grossover-eating, for they afford us nothing towards the survival ofthe race, as does lawful marriage, nor towards the maintenanceof our own individual life, but even do positive harm. Thereforea true man of God must pursue only the pleasures that are bothnecessary and natural, while, at his rear, the man in virtue's


second rank1 may indulge other pleasures besides, which, whilenatural, are not necessary, provided always that they are fitting,moderate, mannerly, seasonable, and in their right place. Allother pleasures, in whatever guise, must be avoided. In short,those are to be accounted good pleasures that carry no griefbound up in them, involve no repenting afterwards, give riseto no countervailing harm, keep within bounds, and do notdistract us from our worthier occupations too much or tootyrannously. Those are genuine pleasures which are in any wayconducive to, or linked with, divine learning, the sciences, andthe virtues. These are to be placed among the prime objects ofpursuit, because they serve not merely our existence, or thesurvival of the race, but the good life, making us into noble andgodly men, and leading us on to the very perfection of man-hood, in soul and understanding. These pleasures are no mereremedies for such and such things that happen to us, as it mightbe the replenishing of bodily wastage. Nor is there any griefinevitably preceding, following, or counterbalancing them.But they are pure, and unmixed with any material strain, beingexclusively pleasures of the soul.

For, as Plato puts it, some pleasures are false pleasures, andsome are genuine.2 False pleasures are all that spring from senseand a deceived judgement; and these have griefs wrapped up inthem. True pleasures are all that belong only to the soul initself, and spring from knowledge, mind, and thought. Suchpleasures are pure and unmixed with grief, carrying no kind ofrepentance in their train at any stage. The pleasures that flowfrom contemplation, and the pleasure that follows from doinggood, are not called passions but susceptibilities.3

1 We have here the double ethical standard within the Christian Church,first occasioned by the Alexandrine conception of "true Gnostics"forming an elite within the community of believers and pledged to morestringent ethical standards than the clergy demanded of their congrega-tions. The spread of organized monastic life from Egypt to Syria fixedthe form in which the double standard was acknowledged there in thetime of Nemesius, who accordingly thinks of the Church as an armydrawn up in line of battle, with those who "truly live a life according toGod" as the front-rank men, while ordinary members of the congregationsare the rear-rank soldiers. Evangelides feels the irony of basing thisdistinction on Epicurus. But restriction to pleasures that are natural andnecessary is an apt description of Christian asceticism in its negativeaspect.

2 Socrates makes this point early in his dialogue with Philebus, and arguesfor the same general conclusion which Nemesius is here invoking.

3 A Stoic distinction.

23—c.j.

3 5 4 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

COMMENTARY

37. The different kinds of pleasure. The opening of this sectionis reminiscent of the first five chapters of Bk. x of the Nico-machean Ethics. Throughout the chapter, Nemesius clearly hasbefore his mind, if not actually the argument about pleasure inthe Philebus of Plato, at least that argument as rehandled bycommentators, or as recast and conflated with the arguments ofAristotle, in ethical literature then recent, of which the Philebuswas prime inspiration. Having said that perception belongs onlyto soul, while the body's only proprium is passivity to harm, andthat most pleasures are enjoyed by means of a co-operating ofbody and soul, Nemesius proceeds to follow Epicurus in hisdivision of these shared pleasures into three classes. Thence heproposes as ideal the ascetic life conceived after the Christianpattern, the proposition being based on (i) Epicurus' classifica-tion of pleasures, (ii) Plato's notion of pleasures which carry nogrief involved in them, and (iii) Aristotle's doctrine of pleasuresthat urge us towards an end in virtue. The use of this combina-tion would be proof of striking originality, if we had not reasonto suppose that the arguments had been prepared by the Neo-Platonists in the interests of contemplative philosophy. But thisfact will only have made the Christian form of the argument thebetter for apologetic ends.

[M. 223.15~225.14.]TEXT

38. Some there are who hold that pleasure of that sort isproperly called joy,1 while they define pleasure as a becomingsensual. But this definition seems only to cover bodily pleasure.For that is, if you will, the satisfying and curing of the body'ssense of need, and of the distress which need entails. For, sup-posing one is cold or thirsty, and assuages the distress that arisesfrom cold or thirst, one enjoys the being warm or the drinking.These benefits, then, are accidental. They are not benefits in-trinsically, or by nature. For just as being restored to health isa good thing, but dependent on circumstances, while being wellis good naturally and by itself, so, likewise, those bodily plea-sures are good according to the circumstances and because theyremedy something, while the pleasures of contemplation are

1 The distinction between chara (joy) as the sensation of the mind andhedoni (pleasure) as the sensation of the body is of Epicurean origin.


good in themselves and by their very nature. They do not springfrom any sense of need. Hence it is clear, therefore, that not allpleasure arises as the satisfaction of a sense of need. That beingso, the definition is unsound which says that pleasure is a be-coming sensual. For it does not include every kind of pleasure,but leaves out the pleasure that flows from contemplation.

Now Epicurus,2 when he defines pleasure as the gradual tak-ing away of what grieves, agrees with those who define it asbecoming sensual. For he says that pleasure is being deliveredfrom anything grievous. But since becoming anything is neveridentical, or even akin, with the corresponding completion, thebirth of pleasure ought not to be identified with pleasure in it-self. It is something quite distinct from actual pleasure. Forbirth is a state of becoming. And nothing in a state of becomingis both becoming and complete at the same time. A thing in astate of becoming is incomplete. But anything that gives pleasuredoes so instantaneously. Surely, then, pleasure is not a becom-ing. Again, becoming always implies that the condition did notexist previously. But pleasure belongs to the category of estab-lished actualities, so it clearly cannot be a becoming. Or, oncemore, becoming may be fast or slow, alternatives inapplicableto pleasure.

COMMENTARY

38. A Neo-Platonist distinction of pleasures refuted. With thissection, we see at once that Nemesius has not before his mind

2 Epicurus, 341-270 B.C, was born in Samos, and began to teach at theage of 32, as one who sought knowledge not for its own sake, like theearlier Greek philosophers, but for the sake of the happiness to whichknowledge is the means. From 306, at Athens, he became the adoredleader of a cult of happiness, supported by an outpouring of philosophicwriting, in which the emphasis is on values belonging to the present life,and on the element of chance and the inexplicable in the universe.Epicurus' thought seems to have been conditioned by a great deal ofphysical pain, which goes to explain his negative approach to the conceptof pleasure. On the other hand, Epicureanism came to be known as the"godless*' philosophy. It was therefore particularly abhorrent to the Neo-Platonists, and it is undoubtedly a gibe, on Nemesius' part, when he dragsEpicurus into his argument, to make him one of the supports of the Neo-Platonic error which he is attacking. In fact, Epicurus, who held that allmental pleasure is derived from the pleasures of sense, had really nothingin common with the Neo-Platonists, as regards the concept of pleasure.The Aristotelian argument that made pleasure an activity (energeia), andnot a becoming, served Nemesius to knock out his opponents on the left(Epicureans) and on the right (Neo-Platonists) at the same time.


the text of the Pkilebus, but something mediated by Neo-Platonic hands. The famous proposition that pleasure is genesis,which was to provoke so much grave debate, begins with ajocular passage in the Philebus where Socrates cites the cynicalsaying of "certain wits" (the allusion is to Aristippus), thatpleasure is always a genesis, and never by any chance an accom-plished reality (ousia). His interlocutors yield to the truth inthis saying, and Socrates draws the conclusion that pleasurecannot be identified with the Good. The saying clearly meansthat pleasure is delusive, a promise that is never fulfilled, a birththat is always an abortion. Aristotle, in the seventh book of hisNicomachean Ethics (ch. 12) attacked the phrase, "Pleasure isgenesis" as a philosophic false principle. His arguments arelargely reproduced by Nemesius in this section. But the pro-position which Nemesius states and refutes is not the simplePlatonic argument, but one developed in a Neo-Platonic sense.The "some" who are refuted begin by distinguishing betweenjoy and pleasure but not exactly in the Epicurean sense. Joy,they say, the fruit of contemplation, is substantial. Pleasure, inbelonging to the world of sense, is not. When the soul experi-ences pleasure, it is entering into the world of sense. So theirdefinition of pleasure is that it is a birth into sensuality, a be-coming sensual. The Platonic disparagement of pleasure hashere taken a step nearer to dualism. It is not actual dualism.Plotinus was in reaction from the Gnostic dogmas, and regardedthe things of sense as not actually bad, but only relatively so, asbeing but the faint and blurred reflection of the things that arereally good, which the soul knows only by contemplation, sincethey belong to the suprasensual. This is, however, too close todualism for Nemesius, who claims that pleasure is one thing,whether it be of the soul alone, or of soul and body together.He therefore brings the Aristotelian battery to bear upon theNeo-Platonist distinction, giving us a further instance of aneclecticism diverging from Neo-Platonism on the Aristotelianside.

[M. 225.14-229.6.]

TEXT

39. Once more, anything good must be either a state, anaction, or a means. Being virtuous is a state, and doing a gooddeed is an action. Or again, being endowed with sight is a state,seeing is an action, and making use of one's eyes, legs, and so


on, is the means of seeing something etc. All the faculties of thesoul that are cognizant of good and bad are exercised in suchand such states. Whether, therefore, pleasure is a good thing ora bad, depends simply upon these states, pleasure being in nowise itself a state.x For it is not like virtue, or else it would notso easily be changed into its opposite, grief. Nor is it a state asbeing the opposite of its own negation. For a state and itsnegation cannot co-exist. But people can have pleasure andgrief simultaneously; for example, those who scratch an itch. Itfollows that pleasure is not a state. Neither is it a means, formeans do not exist in vacuo, but for the sake of other things.Pleasure, however, justifies its own existence, without any otherend to serve. So it clearly cannot be a means. It remains, there-fore, that pleasure is activity, wherefore Aristotle defines it asactivity that does not disturb our natural state. For anythingthat hampers natural activity is a grief. Now prosperity isactivity that does not disturb our natural state. It follows that,according to this definition, prosperity and pleasure are iden-tical, and so the definition as such breaks down. So Aristotlecorrected it and said that pleasure is the objective of the un-impeded natural activities of a living creature: so as to connectup pleasure and prosperity, and make them exist together,without actually identifying them.

Not all activity is movement, but there is a kind of activitythat goes on in stillness, as with the divine activity as FirstCause. For the First Mover is unmoved. Now the activity ofcontemplation, on man's part, is activity of such a sort, becauseit takes place in stillness, because the object of contemplationis unchanging, and the contemplating mind is at rest, seeingthat it is turned ever upon one and the same object. Now if thepleasure of contemplation, being, as it is, the greatest, mostauthentic, and truest of pleasures, happens in stillness, it is clearthat pleasures are better and greater in inverse proportion tothe disturbance they involve.

Pleasures differ in correspondence with the activities con-cerned. There are as many kinds of pleasure as there are ofactivity, good pleasures corresponding with good activities, and

1 Vice is a state. If a person is vicious, all the faculties of his soul, and withthem his judgements, are vitiated. The faculties of a virtuous man worktruly and his judgements are right. Both sorts of men have pleasures, butwith one they are wholesome and a good thing, and with the other a badthing; e.g., a good man has pleasure in his happy marriage and a badman in loose connections which do harm.


bad with bad.2 It is plain, moreover, that different forms ofpleasure correspond with the several senses. There are pleasurescharacteristic of touch, and pleasures characteristic of taste;there are pleasures of the eye, and ear, and nose. Those sensesthat are not in actual contact with their pleasurable objects,such as sight, hearing, and smell, are the purest in the pleasurethey give.

There are two types of mind, one inclining to action and theother contemplative. Clearly, therefore, there must be twoforms of pleasure consequent upon these two activities. Of thetwo, contemplation3 is the purer. The characteristically humanpleasures are those of the mind. For sensual pleasures are sharedby man, as a living creature, with the other living creatures.Now since some folk prefer certain of the pleasures of sense, andothers prefer others, the pleasures that are good in themselvesare not those that seem so to worthless fellows, but are thosethat seem so to men of fine character. For a competent judge,in any matter, is not Tom, Dick, or Harry, but the man whopossesses both knowledge and a balanced character.

COMMENTARY

39. A true definition and criterion of pleasures. Having disposed ofthe Neo-Platonic error that the nature of bodily pleasure isgenesis or passive change, Nemesius now follows Aristotle'sEthics, Bk. VII, ch. 12 in establishing that pleasure is an activity,and accepts an Aristotelian definition based on the natural2 In general, activities are good or bad according to the state of the subject.

But contemplation is an activity which is either good or non-existent.Some pleasures of sense are less ready to be vicious than others. What ismeant is that good pleasures correspond with higher activities and badpleasures with lower, though the pleasures corresponding with the loweractivities need not be bad.

3 Nemesius is taking the word theoria, contemplation, from Aristotle, withwhom it means letting the mind study an object of knowledge, for no endother than the knowledge. But during the fourth century of our era theword had been taking on new and specifically religious associations, alikewith Neo-Platonists and Christians. Christian writers of the fourth tofifth centuries use theoria of exegesis; Alexandrines for finding an alle-gorical sense in a historical narrative, and Antiochenes for discerning,through the plain literal sense, an underlying spiritual truth. Theoria alsomeant the characteristic occupation of monks, for which another namewas mental prayer, in which heart and mind are given up to the quest forGod and the knowledge of his will. It serves Nemesius' apologetic purposeto make none of these Christian associations of the word explicit. Neo-Platonist theoria was admired, and that opened an approach, on the partof the apologist, to the sympathetic attention of his readers.


activities of a living creature. What this definition means forNemesius, therefore, can only be sought at the end of his en-quiry into the nature of man. Pleasure being thus provisionallydefined, the rest of the section is devoted to seeking a criterionof excellence for pleasures.

The first, preferring the calm and cool to the hot and agitated,is weighted against the ideal of an active life, and, in this,reflects the temper of the late fourth-century Church. Thesecond, invalidating common opinion, finds the sound judge ofpleasure only in such as have gone beyond untested opinionto soundly-based knowledge, and in whose natural dispositionthere is no disorder. The achievement, in finding a criterion, isnot remarkable, but the firmness with which Nemesius clingsto "what is natural" as an essential part of the criterion, isremarkable. It reflects his belief that "the nature of man" is notonly a subject of question, but involves an ideal to be actualized.

[M. 229.7-235.6.]XIX. Of grief

TEXT

40. The forms of grief are four;1 pain, trouble, envy, and com-miseration. Pain is a form of grief that makes us catch ourbreath. Trouble is grief that depresses us. Envy is grief provokedby other folk's prosperity. Commiseration is grief called out byevils that other people suffer. Every form of grief, by its essentialnature, is an evil. For even though it may chance to be thegrief of a worthy man at the destruction of good men, or at thedeaths of children, or at the ruin of a city, yet he does not grievefor the sake of grieving, nor of deliberate choice, but as driventhereto by circumstances. But when such things occur, an actualcontemplative will be completely unmoved, seeing that he hassevered himself from present things, and cleaves to God; whileany worthy man is schooled to be affected by such griefs onlyin due measure, not excessively, nor so as to behave as theircaptive, but rather as battling for the mastery of them.2 Griefis the antithesis of temperate pleasure, as bad is opposite to1 Domanski shows that the definitions in this section are all Stoic defini-

tions.2 Nemesius, who, in many ways, reproduces the liberal humanist outlook

of Clement of Alexandria, is particularly reminiscent of him in this com-parison of the contemplative (theoreticos) who has attained apathy (thestate of independence of natural emotions, reached by a long ascetictraining), and the "worthy man" (spoudaios) who has not yet come to so


good, while it compares with inordinate pleasure as one badthing with another. Inordinate pleasures are bodily pleasures,and none other. For the pleasures of contemplation, thoughpartaken in the highest degree and even to perfection, do notentail any element of excess. There is no grief, that is, opposedto such pleasures, nor are they the mere cure of previous grief.

XX. Of fear

TEXT

There are six different manifestations of fear; diffidence, shy-ness, shame, consternation, terror, and anguish. Diffidence isfear of taking action. Consternation is fear generated by somestrong apprehension. Terror is fear caused by some impressionwithout precedent. Anguish is panic fear, which is to say, help-less fear. We are in anguish when we are afraid that there isnothing whatever that we can do. Shyness is the fear of incur-ring adverse judgement, and is the least ignoble form of thispassion. Shame is the fear that springs from having done somedisgraceful deed; but shame is not unmixed with hope ofdeliverance. Shyness differs from shame in this, that an ashamedperson is plunged in shame by what he has done, but the shyperson only fears lest he should incur some bad opinion of him-self. Ancient writers, however, often call modesty shame, andshame modesty (or shyness),3 using the words indifferently (orimproperly).

Fear starts with a chilling of the extremities, all the hot bloodrunning to the heart, as to the centre of control, just as themob, when frightened, rushes to the rulers of the city.4 Theorgan of such grief is the pit of the stomach, for this it is that, atonsets of fear, feels a gnawing sensation. So Galen, in his work,On demonstration. Book in, says something to this effect: "Peopleattacked by fear experience no slight inflow of yellow bile intothe stomach, which makes them feel a gnawing sensation, and

high a state, but has attained metriopathy, or a habit of reaction strictlyproportioned to the deserts of the causes of reaction, never being in-ordinately exalted or depressed by events. Domanski suggests that thisparticular distinction came to Nemesius directly from Porphyry.

3 One Greek word represents modesty and shyness. Nemesius has anaccurate estimate of shyness, but the older writers cover a wider range ofmeaning with the one word, so that modesty is at the other end of thisrange from the shame of disgrace. Nemesius is critical of these ancients,as showing in this matter a lack of discernment.

* This simile begins an allusion to the Timaeus, ch. 31 (end).


they do not cease feeling both distress of mind and the gnawinguntil they have vomited up the bile." For this gnawing sensa-tion is felt just below the cartilage in the midst of the chest,known as the sword-shaped cartilage. The heart lies consider-ably higher, for, while the stomach is lower down than thediaphragm, the heart is above it. Ancient writers were used tosay "the heart" when they meant the pit of the stomach. ThusHippocrates and Thucydides, in describing the plague, speakthus: "And as soon as the disease fastened on the heart, itturned it over, and there ensued every kind of bile-dischargedistinguished by physicians."5 For, of course, it was the pit ofthe stomach that was thus affected and forced to vomit, and notthe internal organ rightly called the heart.

XXL Of anger

TEXT

Anger is the heating of the blood round the heart, takingplace as a result of exhalation rising from the bile, or from thebile becoming turbid. That is why anger is called choler, andbitterness. Sometimes anger is a desire for revenge. For, whenwe have suffered a wrong, or think we have, we get angry, andthe passion that then takes us is mingled of desire and anger.There are three forms of anger; wrath (also called choler andbitterness), vindictiveness, and rancour. For anger, when, in itsbeginning, it blazes up, is called wrath, or choler, or bitterness.But vindictiveness is choler grown chronic, and gets its name6

from continuing, and being preserved in memory. Rancour,again, is wrath that bides its time to execute vengeance, andit gets its name7 from the word for lying in wait.

Anger is "reason turning out the guard."8 For when thought5 Cited from Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Bk. II, ch. 49,

but, no doubt, taken directly by Nemesius from its use in Galen's Com-mentary on Hippocratean prognosis, in. 30. There is no strict citation of anypassage of Galen, but the medical knowledge of this section is all to befound in him.

6 There is a fancied connection, here, between minis, the lasting displeasureof the gods (or vindictiveness of men), and menein, to last, or continue; oragain memnemai, to remember.

7 Another fanciful etymology, connecting kotos, rancour, with keistkai, to lie.8 In the passage of Timaeus, 31, cited above, Plato (though the passage has

certainly suffered retouches) likens the heart to the guard-house of a city,implying, what Nemesius makes explicit, a likening of anger to the rushingout of the guard, when something has happened, either inside the city orwithout, that constitutes a challenge. Nemesius improves upon Plato'ssuggested relationship between reason and anger.


concludes that what has taken place is displeasing, anger makesa sally against it; if so be that rational thought and anger ob-serve their respective natural functions.9

COMMENTARY

40. The unpleasant emotions. The essay on pleasure in Section39 is now followed by a review of the unpleasant emotions,grief, fear, and anger. Section 40 is covered by Domanski, op.cit.) pp. 121-129.

[M. 236.1-240.11.]

X X I I . Of the irrational part of the soul over which reason has nocontrol

TEXT

41. The irrational part of the soul that is answerable to reasonhas now been reviewed. The part that is not accountable toreason is the nutritive, the generative, and the pulsatoryfaculties. The nutritive and generative are called naturalfaculties, and the pulsatory, vital.

XXIII. Of the nutritive faculty

TEXT

The nutritive faculty has four natural processes,1 appetitive,retentive, digestive, and secretory. For it is natural to each

9 What is said about anger in this chapter must be combined with what hasbeen said about "courageous anger" in the middle of Section 35. Neme-sius differs from the Stoics in his estimate of the place of anger in the goodlife, needing to leave room for righteous anger.

• Nemesius takes from Galen, On the natural faculties, 111. 8, the scheme offour natural processes, of taking in, holding, breaking down, and castingforth, which enter into physiological function in several ways. In allprobability this scheme of four processes goes back to Panaetius, themaster of Posidonius. Tertullian, On the soul, xiv says that Panaetiusdivided the soul into five or six parts, and Posidonius into fourteen (thetext reads seventeen). He goes on to explain that, by parts, Posidoniusmeans faculties. Faculty, it here appears, means the capacity for perform-ing a particular natural function. Posidonius considered every suchfaculty a partial manifestation of divine power immanent in the universe,which everywhere worked by some or all of the above four processes.Thus, for example, Posidonius explained the lodestone by saying that it


member of a living creature to draw to itself its appropriatenourishment, to retain what it has so acquired, transform whatit retains into its own substance, and finally pass off the residue.It is these processes that administer the nourishing of the mem-bers of the body, whereby their growth in either dimensiontakes place.

Unwanted matter is evacuated, by passing through thestomach, by urination, by vomiting, in perspiration, by way ofthe mouth, nostrils, ears and eyes, in the breath and throughinvisible pores. Apart from these last, evacuations are visible.That through the ears is what we call wax, being the filth fromthe ears; that from the eyes consists of tears and rheum; that inthe breath is a kind of smoke made by the heart's heat. It is saidthat the invisible pores form the general ventilation of the body,whereby, thanks to the porousness of the skin, most vapourscoming from deep down, from the contracting of the arteries,make their way out. The organs of nutrition are the mouth, thegullet, the belly, the liver and all its veins, the intestines, thetwo bile-generators,2 and the kidneys. The mouth begins thepreparation of the food for the stomach by chopping it up intosmall pieces, using teeth and tongue. For, in mastication, thetongue is of the greatest use, in gathering up the food and push-ing it under the teeth, just like women grinding corn, who pushthe grain by hand under the millstones. For, in mastication, thetongue acts as hand. And when the food has been reduced inthis way, it is sent on its journey through gullet and stomach tothe bowels. For the stomach is not only the part that feels theneed of food, but is also an organ of passage for foodstuffs. For,in the act of swallowing, the gullet3 stretches up and sucks downthe food, and so passes it on into the bowels. Once the belly hasreceived the food, it separates what is good and nourishing fromwhat is gritty, stringy, and useless for food. It changes the good

exhibited two, only, of the four processes, namely the appetitive andretentive. A self-nourishing plant or animal, on the other hand, wouldexhibit all four. It will be seen that, in ch. xxm, not only is the wholebody shown as employing the four processes in self-nutriment, but thedifferent organs are likewise shown to employ them in regard to theblood. The whole chapter is derived, as regards its physiology, fromGalen.

2 i.e., the gall-bladder, and the spleen, which the ancients supposed tosecrete "black bile."

3 The Greek word stomachos included the gullet as well as that first sectionof the alimentary canal to which we apply the name stomach. Stomachosmust therefore be rendered gullet or stomach as the sense of the passageseems to require.

NEMESIUS OF EMESA

food into humours, and passes them on to the liver throughthose veins that draw the juices from the digestive organs anddistribute them through the liver. These veins may be likenedto the liver's roots, since they draw the nourishment from thestomach in just the same way that the roots of plants draw itfrom the earth. For the belly is comparable with the earthwhich provides the nourishment of plants,4 while the corre-sponding roots are the veins which carry the humour from thestomach and from the intestines through the mesentery to theorifices and the bottom of the liver. And we can compare theliver itself to the trunk, while the branches and twigs are theveins that branch off from the main vein issuing from the lobesof the liver. For when the liver has received the humour fromthe belly it digests and assimilates it, since the flesh of the liveris most similar to blood, and so is suited to transforming humourinto blood.5 The purifying of the blood takes place through thespleen, the gall-bladder, and the kidneys, the spleen drawingoff the dregs of the blood to replenish itself, the gall-bladderdrawing off the bitterness still present in the nutritive juices,and the kidneys taking the watery residue and any bitter juicesthat still remain, so that the blood is afterwards pure and good,and can be distributed as nutriment to all other parts of thebody, through the veins dispersed among them.6

Thus each several member draws blood into itself, retains it,and transforms it into its own proper nature, sending on whatit does not need to the adjoining members, to yield themnourishment appropriate to their needs. In this manner everymember draws its nourishment from the blood, and grows and4 Similes likening the human body to a plant go back to Plato and Aristotle;

but the anatomists discovered that the blood-vessels made a system thatcould be likened to a tree with a two-fold trunk, branches, and twigs. The"power" in this system seemed partly comparable to that of a magnet, inthat it incessantly drew in, and cast out. Brain, nerves, and spinal chordwere also like a tree whose "power" was to bring sensation wherever itreached, and to set the muscles in motion.

5 The naive assumption, here, is that because liver is like clotted blood, itis the blood-maker, having the power to turn the chyle into blood. Owingto this assumption, Nemesius follows his predecessors into attributing tothe liver the work of body-building actually due to the heart and lungs.

6 Aristotle asserted that blood was the sole nutrient of the members of thebody. Hippocrates had argued to the contrary effect, that such dissimilarthings as bone and flesh could not be equally transformations of one andthe same substance. Therefore, he said, the other three humours musttake part in the building of the body. But as phlebotomy revealed thefact that other humours mingled in the blood, it was readily concludedthat the body-building "power" worked everywhere through the blood.


maintains itself; while the liver is the general purveyor ofblood.

This department of the irrational functioning of the body issaid not to answer to reason in the sense that it accomplishes itsproper work by the laws of Nature, and not by any intention orchoice of ours that it should do so.

COMMENTARY

41 . The functions of the soul that go on independently of reason.What is called ch. xxn is really nothing more than an extendedheading to the group of chs. xxm-xxv, covering the functionsstemming from what is called, in Domanski's chart, the "un-controllable" irrational part of the soul, in contradistinction tothose functions that are in any degree susceptible to control byreason. For commentary on this group of chapters, see Evan-gelides, op. cit., pp. 21-28, from whom the following note islargely drawn.

Nemesius believes it possible to reach an authentic psychologyonly by taking evidence over the whole range of the life-functionsof man, and in this group of chapters seeks to disclose the rela-tion of those life-functions to man's anatomy and physiology.The knowledge of the ancients on these subjects may be said tobegin with Aristotle, and the teleological physiology of his work,On the parts of animals. Herophilus and Erasistratus, at Alex-andria, developed the knowledge of anatomy, a study that nodoubt was much advanced in Egypt by the custom of theEgyptians of embalming their dead. A succession of schools ledup to Galen. Nemesius, while he depends chiefly on Galen,shows that he had knowledge, by some means, of the Alex-andrine surgeons, and tries to correlate his sources. The reasonthat he found Galen so attractive is that Galen, starting fromthe Aristotelian teleology, and his maxim "Nature never doesanything in vain,55 inferred the glory of the Creator from hisanatomical and physiological observations. In his work On theuse of the parts of the body (in. 10 and xvn. 1) he acknowledges theheart of true religion to lie in recognition of the divine careexercised in nature. And while Nemesius is dissatisfied with theclarity of his testimony to the substantiality of the soul, he fullyaccepts from him the conviction that, as substance, the soul istruly united to the body, so as to be affected in the genesis anddecay of the body, and indeed by all its vicissitudes.


[M. 240.12-248.13.]

XXIV. Of the pulses

TEXT

42. The beating of the pulses is also called the vital process.Its inception, however, is from the heart, or, more exactly, fromthe left ventricle, which they call the vital-spirit ventricle. Thatventricle distributes the natural heat of life to every part of thebody through the arteries, just as the liver distributes nourish-ment through the veins.l So long as the heart is hot, just so longis the whole living body heated, and as soon as the heart growscold the whole body grows cold with it. For the vital spirit is1 The distinction of function as between arteries and veins presented severe

difficulty to the early physicians. They were misled by the disclosures ofpost-mortem dissection, which found the arteries collapsed, and the leftventricle of the heart empty of blood, the last completed act of the morbidorganism having been to drive forward its last load of red blood. Theancients concluded, therefore, that the arteries were not blood-vessels atall, but ducts for "vital spirits," conceived as a hot and stimulating "gas."Praxagoras, in the late fourth century B.C., was the first to recognize thatveins and arteries were in some way different in function. Somewhilelater, Erasistratus proposed the clean-cut distinction which made thearteries purely carriers of vital spirit, and the veins the sole carriers ofblood, of which a perpetually new supply was supposed to be manu-factured by the liver, for continuous replacement of the loss throughvaporization into vital spirit of the thin blood sucked through the capil-laries. Nemesius reproduces the Erasistratian theory. It made terms withthe phenomena of arterial bleeding by saying that, when an artery issevered, first of all vital spirit escapes invisibly (and the patient conse-quently faints). Then the contraction of the artery, as Nemesius says,sucks blood from the capillaries and squirts it from the wound in violentjets. It was supposed that the capillaries formed a sieve through whichonly the refined part of the venous blood was drawn by arterial suction.The same explanation was offered for the traces of blood found in thecollapsed arteries of the dead. They were attributed to the process ofconcoction of vital spirit from the vaporization of refined blood. Galen[On the natural faculties, in. 14) added another theory, that where arteriesreached the surface of the flesh, they drew in air, which, being carriedto the left ventricle of the heart, regenerates the vital spirits. He alsowrote a tract entitled Does blood, in the course of nature, flow in the arteries?in which he answered his own question in the affirmative. He could not,however, discard the old theory entirely, but supposed that, in thearteries, the blood-flow left room for vital spirit. He even explained feveras the result of an excessive flow of arterial blood, excluding the flow ofvital spirit. By seeing that blood flowed in the arteries, and that blood wasrejuvenated by respiration, Galen was within striking distance of dis-covering the circulation of the blood. But conservative opinion, such asthat of Nemesius, was unwilling to follow him.


sent out from the heart along the arteries into every part of thebody. It is a fair generalization that these three, vein, artery,and nerve, branch off in company, each taking its start fromone of the three organs that regulate the life of man.2 That is tosay that nerves run from the brain as from the starting-point ofmovement and perception. From the liver as source of bloodand nutriment go the veins or blood-vessels. From the heart asfount of the vital spirits proceed the arteries, as vessels for thevital spirit. And in working thus together, veins, arteries, andnerves benefit each other. For vein brings replenishment tonerve and artery; artery trades back to vein natural warmthand vital spirit;3 while nerve provides both vein and artery, asindeed the whole body, with sense perception. Therefore,wherever you find an artery, there is refined blood; whereverthere is a vein, exhalation is going on; and wherever a nerveruns, there is sensitiveness.

An artery distends and contracts with force, and yet in amodulated and regular fashion, for the movement originatesfrom the heart. On the other hand, each time it distends, theartery forcibly sucks refined blood out of the adjoining veins,and this refined blood vaporizes and replenishes the vitalspirits. Then, in contracting, the artery voids such waste pro-ducts as it contains right through the surrounding body and outof the invisible pores, in just the same way as the heart, inbreathing out, expels its hot smoke through the mouth and nose.

2 There are thus three vital organs, heart, brain, liver, each with its"power" distributed by ramification through the body; from the heart,vital spirit through the arteries, from the brain, psychic or sentient spiritthrough the nerves, and from the liver, nutrient blood through the veins.Cf. Galen, Agreement, v. 7.

3 It will be noticed that there is no mention of any benefit conveyed fromartery to nerve, in this clause, where it might have been expected. Wehave seen that Galen supposes psychic spirit to extend along the nervesfrom the brain. For this reason, probably, he did not suppose vital spiritto pass from the adjoining artery to the nerve. Vital spirit was, however,held to be carried from the heart to the brain by the arteries running upto the head. Here we must suppose that, through the direct action of thesoul, vital spirit becomes psychic spirit. See Evangelides, op. cit., p. 30.Note 6 (vital spirit becomes psychic spirit in the forelobes of the brain).We must thus understand Nemesius, when he speaks of the soul as in-corporeal, to be using the word in much the same sense as that in whichit could be applied to a geometrical point. Relatively to the phenomenalworld it has position; even if this is not strictly spatial, but only "habit-ual." It is so far localized as to transform vital into psychic spirit in thebrain, and in this way maintain perception and consciousness. Galenmakes the brain the seat of the soul (On parts affected, m, 9).


X X V . Of the generative faculty, or concerning semen

TEXT

The generative faculty likewise belongs to that part of thebodily functions not answerable to reason. For it is quite in-voluntarily that we emit semen when dreaming.4 And the urgeto intercourse is in our nature, for we find ourselves impelledtowards it against our deliberate will. But the sexual act itselfis unquestionably within our control, and is an act of the soul.For while it is consummated by organs subject to impulse, it iswithin our power to abstain and to master the impulse.5

The organs of the seminal process are, in the first instance,the veins and arteries; for it is in these that the seminal fluid isfirst generated by a transmuting of the blood,6 in the same waythat milk is generated from the blood in female breasts.7 Indeed,seminal fluid is food for the blood-vessels, because they originatefrom semen at first conception. So, then, while arteries andveins concoct the blood into seminal fluid for their own sus-tenance,8 any excess over their needs for that purpose becomes4 Bishop Fell compares the canonical ruling of Timothy, bishop of Alex-

andria (381-5), in his eighteen Responsa Canonica, that having sexual desirein a dream is no ground for abstaining, as though defiled, from the HolyMysteries.

5 The close of this paragraph seems to contradict its opening. But thoughthe generative faculty may lie outside the control of reason, as touching itsprimary activities, no sooner do its operations mingle with those offaculties that are under rational control than sexual impulses which couldnot be inhibited can be turned from attaining the ends towards whichthey tended, by reasoned exercise of will. To this extent, they are underrational control.

* Nemesius, who does not admit that blood flows in arteries, here leavesuncorrected what he has taken from Galen, who credits the arteries notonly with vitalizing the seminal fluid, but also with a share in its con-coction from blood.

7 The theory that, at the end of pregnancy, blood, turned back from thewomb, entered the breasts, and was there agitated by vital spirit till ittook the form of milk, is set forth at length in Clement of Alexandria'sPedagogue, 1. 6. Galen, On the care of the health, 7, accepts the view thatbreast-milk is transformed blood.

8 Hippocrates having overthrown the theory that blood is sole builder ofbody, early embryologists, finding the formation of blood-vessels pre-ceding the presence of blood in the embryo, concluded that the humourfrom which they were formed must be semen. If so, then all subsequentgrowth and replenishment of blood-vessels must be due to the samehumour. Hence proceeds the present argument, that the concoction ofseminal fluid from blood is aimed first at the maintenance of the blood-vessels, and that the supply of semen to the genital organs follows onlyafter the satisfaction of the first need.


semen. The first stage is that this is carried by a long andtortuous route to the head. The next is that it is carried downagain from the head by two veins and two arteries. That is whyexcision of the veins that run round the ears and alongside thecarotid arteries renders the individual sterile.9

The two veins and arteries in question end in a spiral andvaricose system enveloping the scrotum,10 whence seminal fluidis distilled into each of the two testicles. In each of these at lastthe seminal fluid borne by one vein and one artery separatesoff into actual semen charged with vital spirit by means of thevaricose that immediately adjoins the testicles. It is for the sakeof this process that each vein is escorted by an artery. Further,that the seminal fluid is carried by a vein is proved by theresult of lewd indulgence. For men who have incessant inter-course and exhaust their seminal and generative fluid, subse-quently, after violent straining, emit pure blood.11

Women have all the same genitals as men, except that theirsare inside the body and not outside it. Besides that, Aristotleand Democritus assert that the woman contributes nothing ofsemen to the generation of children. For, according to them,that which women emit is a discharge of the womb rather thansemen. But Galen scorns the view of Aristotle,12 and says thatwomen do produce semen, and that it is the mingling of thetwo kinds of semen that produces the embryo. That is why, hesays, intercourse is called, in Greek, "mingling." He admitsthat female semen is far from being full-developed, like themale, but says that it is still unconcocted and at a more waterystage. Since female semen is of this character, he continues, itserves to feed male semen. Also some part of the after-birth,

9 This is pure superstition. It is burlesqued by Rabelais in his account ofthe birth of Gargantua {Gargantuan Chronicle, vi), whom he describes aspassing from his mother's womb up the hollow vein, and entering theworld by her left ear. Rabelais, who became professor of medicine atMontpellier in 1530, was steeped in Hippocrates and Galen. In him wesee the scientific spirit of the renaissance detecting the nonsense in itsheritage from the classical age.

i° Galen, On semen, 1. 5.11 Ps. Galen, On semen, in. 3.12 Not until the early nineteenth century were mammalian ova detected.

Until then, conception presented a problem without a clue. Aristotle hadthe insight to see that menstruation is a mere discharge. But most phys-icians, including Galen, lured by the general parallelism between thesexes, and the derivation of male semen from blood, tried to account formenstrual fluid as female semen. Nemesius reports Galen's argumentswithout conviction. Embryology was Galen's weakest subject.24—c.j.


that lines the horn-shaped extremities of the womb is com-pounded from female semen, as is the so-called "sausage-skin3 *which receives the excretions of the embryo. In every kind ofliving creature the female mates with the male when she be-comes capable of pregnancy. Therefore, those females that arecontinuously capable of pregnancy mate at any time, such ashens, doves, and humans. But while other female creatures,when pregnant, avoid the male, women grant intercourse atany time. For hens, too, which lay almost daily, are mountedalmost daily.

Women, however, exercise their free will in having inter-course after conception, as they do in other matters; whereasirrational creatures are regulated, not by any choice of theirs,but under the working of Nature, so that they accept alike thedue measure and the set season.13

COMMENTARY

42. The vital and generative processes. This section is the subjectof a study by F. S. Lammert in Philologus, xciv (1941), pp.125-141, in which he shows that, on one subject in each chap-ter, Nemesius diverges from the view of Galen, in favour of aview previously prevailing. The observation is important, asproving that Nemesius is no mere copier of passages fromGalen, but a wide reader on medical subjects. On the otherhand, he does not show a critical and professional judgementon such matters, but writes as might a layman and amateur.We may further infer that the public to which he addressedthis work was also given to reading works on health and medi-cine. And again, we may infer that Galen's prestige, if it hadalready reached its zenith so far as practitioners were con-cerned, had not caused his doctrines to displace old establishedtheories from the minds of the general reading public.

The achievement of the section is the soundness of the founda-tion which it lays for the building of an ethic.

13 Comparisons with animal behaviour indicate that the indeterminateelement in human behaviour gives it ethical character. The observationis the more valuable in following so careful a limitation of the indetermin-ism in human conduct.


[M. 249.1-253.11.]

XXVI. Another way of dividing up the faculties that control the life ofa living creature

TEXT

43. Some people classify the faculties in a living creature inanother way. Some they call faculties of the soul, and some vitalfaculties. Those which they call faculties of the soul (or con-scious1 faculties) depend upon the will. Those that they callphysical and vital faculties go on involuntarily. Consciousfaculties divide into two, one group being faculties of impulsionand the other faculties of perception. Of impulsion there arethree forms; first, locomotion, and the power of individualmovement in every part of the body, then of utterance, andfinally, of respiration. It is in our power to do these things, orto refrain from doing them. Physical and vital faculties, on theother hand, are not at our discretion, but go on, whether wewill it so or not. Being nourished, growing, and forming semenare examples of physical faculties; and pulse is an instance of avital faculty. The organs of these and the other unconsciousfaculties have been described already. We will speak now,therefore, about voluntary motion.

XXVII. Of impulsion depending upon the will, also called theappetitive faculty

TEXT

The origination of willed movement or impulsion, then, is inthe brain, and (what is in fact part of the brain) the spinalmarrow. Its organs are the nerves2 proceeding from the brain1 The ancients knew perception, but no such abstraction as "conscious-

ness." That noun and the corresponding adjective therefore cannotrightly be used in translating a Greek author. It is clear, however, thatvery often the meaning that underlies the use of the adjective psychicos isjust what we should represent by "conscious."

2 Galen seems to be the first writer to use the word neuron otherwise thanfor a sinew. The nerve threads qualified for the description neuron, be-cause they were among the sinews of which the body is woven. But Galen,who recognized the nerves for what they are, treated them as the neurapar excellence and found alternative words to describe other fibres, liga-ments, and so on. Thus, by the time of Nemesius, the use of the wordneuron predominantly, if not exclusively, in the sense of "nerve" wasbecoming established.


and spine, with the ligaments and muscles. Muscles consist offlesh, of nerve-strings, and of tendons with which nerve-stringsare inter-woven. Some have supposed that muscles possesssense-perception, for that reason, on account of the feeling thatis in the nerves woven together with the muscles. A tendon3 (toresume definition) is made up of a ligament and sensitive4

nerves. Sinew differs from nerve, in that every nerve has feelingin it, is round, and softer than sinew, and has its starting pointin the brain. A tendon (or sinew), on the other hand, is at onceharder, rooted in bone, insensitive in itself, and frequentlyband-like.

Hands5 are the organ for taking hold of things, and are com-pletely adapted for the arts. For, if one were to remove hishands, or merely amputate his fingers, one would render aman practically useless for almost every art; wherefore theCreator gave hands to man only, in view of his being rationaland capable of arts.6 Feet constitute the organ of locomotion;for by them we make our way from one place to another. Manis the only creature that sits, without needing anything to leanagainst.7 For man alone bends his legs through a right angle intwo places, at the hip and at the knee, bending the legs up atthe hip and down at the knee. Whatever movement takes placeby the operation of nerves and muscles involves the interventionof the soul,8 and is accomplished by an act of will. Acts of per-ceiving and of utterance we have shown to belong to this cate-

3 While the opening of ch. XXVII is reminiscent of Aristotle, History ofAnimals, in. 6, the second half tends to leave Aristotle for the later phys-icians. This definition of tendon is not an Aristotelian definition.

4 Literally, "light." It was still necessary to use such an adjective withneuron to show that nerves and not sinews were meant.

5 Nemesius is here dependent (through intermediaries, no doubt) on apassage of Posidonius dilating upon the purpose of the human hand. Itis a special interest of Posidonius to relate the characteristics of an organto its function in life. Cicero works up the Posidonian praise of the humanhands. Aristotle had called the hand "instrument par excellence" in thesense that the use of all other instruments depends on the possession ofhands.

• Anaxagoras had said "Man is clever because he has hands." The teleologyof Galen reversed the order, so as to say "Because man is clever and canuse fine implements, God gave him hands." Nemesius simply followsGalen.

7 So Galen, On the use of the parts of the body, in. 3.8 Nemesius is again following Galen in making muscular impulse proceed

from the soul, but goes beyond Galen, and reaches his own characteristicinterest, by inferring an act of the will connecting the soul and the move-ment.


gory. Such, then, is the logical distinction to be made betweenthe conscious and the purely physical operations. Nevertheless,it is to be noted that the Creator, in his supreme forethought,has woven all that proceeds from the soul together with what-ever springs from nature, and the latter with the former. Forconsider the example of the voiding of excrements, an operationof the secretory process, which is one of the purely physicalprocesses; for all of which, lest we should involuntarily disgraceourselves by voiding in unsuitable places, moments, or cir-cumstances, certain muscles have been made, as it were,guardians of the gate, in the matter of evacuations. So some-thing that is an operation of Nature has been brought withinthe domain of soul;9 and, because of this, we have the power torestrain evacuations, and to do so repeatedly and for a longwhile.

The soft nerves of sensation descend from the middle partand from the front lobes of the brain, while the harder motor-nerves proceed from the posterior lobe and the marrow of thespine; of these the nerves that spring from the spinal marroware the harder, and of these again the hardest are those thatspring from the base of the spine. The further, in fact, thespine-marrow is from the brain, so much is it the harder, andlikewise the nerves that grow out of it.10

As we have been given sense-organs in pairs, so we havenerves springing out in pairs. Each spinal vertebra sends out apair of nerves, one of which runs to the right side of the body,and the other to the left. For almost the whole of our body issymmetrically in two, a right and a left; and so it is with feetand hands, and with each of the other right and left organs, asit is likewise with the organs of sense.11

9 Though the example is inelegant, the general observation—thatpsychic and physical are intimately connected—is among the most valu-able contributions which Nemesius makes in his study of the nature ofman.

10 Nemesius, says Evangelides, is following Galen into one of his errorswhen he makes the motor-nerves harder (and so, by implication stronger)the farther they lie from the brain. Galen may have been influenced byhis alternative theory of the origination of muscular movement, that it wascaused by an outflow of psychic spirit from the brain along the nerve. Sohard nerve might make up for deficiency of psychic spirit and the sup-posed observation might suggest that both theories were simultaneouslytrue.

n Thus Aristotle, On the parts of animals, m. 3, admiring the aesthetic sym-metry. But Nemesius improves upon him with fresh anatomical know-ledge.

3 7 4 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

COMMENTARY

43. Consciousness and will. Ch. xxvi forms one of the maintransitions of the book, because it opens the way to the con-sideration of voluntary action, and so, in turn, to that of moralfree-will. The cue has been taken from the close of the precedingchapter, which has pointed to a contrast between women andfemale irrational creatures in respect to coition. Women haveto autexousion (power of self-determination). Hitherto Nemesiushas followed the Hellenic tradition as represented, for example,in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. in, in considering the life ofliving man from the point of view of reason asserting itself asthe governing principle therein, against irrational passions. Theemphasis was upon reason, and not, as in this section, on thesoul as self-determining. But the Posidonian doctrine of dynameis("powers") enabling particular portions of the life-process to goon, and the discoveries of the physicians, had produced a viewof impulse independent of the reason-passion framework, and socalled for a new approach to the subject of self-determination.Nemesius was not wholly an innovator in the argument whichhe now develops. He shows this by his opening, "Some peopleclassify." It is not obvious who these people were, but theirthreefold division of faculties stands in obvious relation to theGalenic system of three principal organs, in the order brain,liver, heart, with their ramifications of nerves, veins, andarteries. We now see that the relationship of these ramificationsin ch. xxiv has been incomplete. The brain-nerve system hasbeen credited with no "power" except that of imparting sensi-tiveness to surrounding tissues. It is now brought to light thatthe brain-nerve system has also the "power" of setting musclesin motion. Evangelides (op. cit., p. 51, Note 29) points out thatGalen was undecided between two explanations. One was thatthe "psychic spirit" ran along the nerves, just as "vital spirit"was driven through the arteries. The other was that while softnerves carried sensation, hard nerves imparted motion, as ifthey were muscles at the root of the muscles. At the end ofSection 30 (M. 195.4) and in Section 43 (M. 252.16) Nemesiusaccepts the second alternative. This suggests that the "somepeople" of ch. xxvi, with their stress upon impulse, are post-Galenic physicians. But Evangelides sees a definite motive inthe choice of alternative, that of placing impulse lower in thescale than perception, which in turn is lower than thought.Thus the life of the soul is carried on at different levels, though


all are equally part of the soul's life. And the different levels arethe means by which the life of the soul is integrated with theautomatic processes of the living body.

[M. 253.12-259.3.]XXVIII. Of respiration

TEXT

44. Respiration, even, is a process involving the soul. For it isthe muscles1 that distend the chest, and that is the principalorgan of respiration. The panting and sobbing breath thataccompanies moments of great grief shows that the soul is herethe driving force. Moreover, it is in our power to modify ourbreathing as we have need. For any pain in the respiratoryorgans or in members that share in their movement, the dia-phragm, for example, or the liver, the spleen, the belly, intes-tines, or colon, makes us breathe short quick breaths; short, soas not to press more than necessary upon the part that is givingthe pain, but quick, so that the number of breaths shall makegood the deficiency in the several inhalations.2 For, to take aparallel, when a leg gives us pain, we walk with very shortsteps, and the very same reasoning applies to breathing. Itfollows that, just as walking is an energy of the soul, so isbreathing. But whereas we can live for any length of time im-mobile and not walking, we cannot hold our breath for a tenthpart of an hour, or anything like so long. For if the vital heatwithin us is suffocated, its own fumes extinguish it, and deathfollows forthwith; as when you cover a flame over with anykind of vessel that has no vent, it is bound to go out, stifled byits own smoke. In view of the necessity of respiration, therefore,the soul goes on, even while we sleep, keeping up this side of itsactivity, knowing that if it were to rest from it, for ever so shorta time, dissolution would ensue.3 So once more we see, from1 Muscles are moved voluntarily, and so lie within the domain of the soul.2 Nemesius is here seen to attribute the rationality of the response of the

respiratory system to pain not to Nature but to the soul of the subject.What he does not say is that the action, if rational, is instinctive, and notthe result of reasoning. So rationality, which is an attribute of the soul,spreads into our instinctive actions.

3 Nemesius now takes a further step, and from attributing to the soulintuitive right action, goes on to attribute to the soul necessary directivegovernment of vital process, divorced from consciousness altogether. Thesoul is said to "know" that it is responsible for maintaining and safe-guarding life. But it is a hidden and innate kind of "knowledge."


this, how the action of soul mingles with the activities ofNature. For the soul is the driving force of respiration, by dintof using an artery, which is a physical organ in perpetualmotion, like the other arteries, never remitting its work.4 A lotof people, not understanding the process, think, for that reason,that breathing is a natural function, pure and simple.

The three causes of respiration are that we need it, that wehave the faculty for it, and that the appropriate organs arepresent. The need for breathing is twofold; we have to keep upour natural heat, and we have to replenish the psychic spirit.5

The natural heat of the body is, however, maintained by dint ofboth inhalation and exhalation. While inhalation first cools andthen gently fans up the vital heat,6 exhalation pours forth thesmoky fumes of the heart. The replenishing of the psychicspirits is derived from the simple fact of respiration. For acertain modicum of air is drawn into the heart by its dilation,7

the soul supplying the power required for this. For it is the soulthat sets the respiratory organs in motion by muscular action;in the first instance, the chest, which in turn sets in motion thelungs and the bronchial tubes8 which form an adjunct of the

4 That the soul is behind respiration was taught by Aristotle (On spirit, 4),followed by Galen. Nemesius agrees, and provides an argument in sup-port. The soul is responsible for voluntary muscular action, and forvoluntary modification of respiratory movement. It is absurd to supposethat the rest of this muscular movement, exactly similar to voluntary im-pulse, takes place apart from the soul. Whence, otherwise, proceeds theperpetual pulsation of the heart and arteries except under impulsion ofthe same power that causes voluntary movement of the limbs?

5 Psychic spirit is evidently used in a different sense, here, from that inwhich Galen uses it of the spirit in the brain, and issuing along the nerves.Lammert (op, cit., p. 131) suggests that Nemesius may, at this point be,drawing upon a physician named Chrysippus, and in any case upon asource other than Galen. Evangelides points to Galen, Agreement, 1. 6,which says "Erasistratus says that the left ventricle of the heart is full ofvital spirit and Chrysippus says of psychic spirit." We have here a varia-tion of vocabulary which probably lies at the root of such confusion asappears in Nemesius' account of "spirit."

6 The heart is thought of as a fire that burns the more brightly for beingfanned. The early physiologists were, in this way, rather at the mercy oftheir own similes. So Aristotle, On Spirit, 6, and Plato, Timaeus, 70.

7 We have had another account of the generation of vital spirits at the endof ch. xxiv, where it is said to be nourished by the vaporizing of the mostrefined blood. That was Galen. What we have here is Chrysippus, whopresumably thought that soul was in some way akin to air.

8 Literally, "the rough arteries." From the lower end of the windpipebranch the two bronchial tubes, one running to each lung, and they inturn branch and branch, each smaller tube in this process being still of


lungs. The gristly part of the windpipe is the organ of voice.The membranous wrappings of the windpipe are organs ofrespiration, while the windpipe itself, combining gristle andmembrane, is the common organ of voice and respiration.

To go back to the lungs, they are a complex combining fourdifferent organs, windpipe and bronchial tubes, artery, vein,and the frothy flesh of the lung itself, which, as padding, fills inthe spaces between the other organs, bronchial tubes, artery,and vein, so as to serve as a seat for them to rest upon, and alsoas a binder to hold them together. This lung-flesh, by Nature'sprocess, concocts the air that reaches it,9 just as liver concoctsthe humour from the belly. For that reason, just as the liverwith its top lobes enfolds the stomach which needs warmth, solikewise the lungs envelope in their midst the heart, whichneeds the cooling of its surface that respiration supplies.10 On

gristle. The whole system is known as the "bronchial tree." The "twigs"of the "tree" are finally extended as soft tubes ending in tiny bladder-likeorgans which carry out the respiratory oxidization of the blood. In thedissection of dead bodies, the similarity of the "bronchial tree" to abranching arterial system was so marked (the arteries being empty ofblood) that the "roughness" of the trachea and "bronchial tree" seemedthe most striking difference. This latter system was, therefore, taken to bearterial, but conveying air alone, and not vital spirits.

Nemesius now turns to trace the system upwards, towards the mouth.The gristle that he now mentions is the upper laryngeal cartilage. Whathe says about the membranous wrappings of the windpipe is to be ex-plained by the fundamental error of the ancients regarding the arteries.They were all credited with a self-contained power of contracting anddilating, for the purpose of driving the vital spirits about the body. Thewindpipe must have this power, accordingly. Mere observation of therespiratory motion would seem to confirm the supposition that the wind-pipe was originating a pulsatory movement, by contracting and dilatingitself. The muscular surroundings of the windpipe (trachea) were accord-ingly interpreted as being the mechanism of pulsation, as in this passage;an erroneous interpretation. Nemesius is right in saying that the tracheaserves in two different functions, that of breathing and that of vocaliza-tion. This dual service was admired by Aristotle, On spirit, 11, and On theparts ofanimals, in. 3.

9 A third account of the generating of vital spirits. This time it may well beGalen who is the source, seeing that in his work, On the purpose of respira-tion, he defines that purpose as "the cooling of the natural heat," as inwhat follows here. It was at least seen that, in the lungs, the "process ofconversion" was at work.

io Dependent on Galen, Nemesius knew nothing of gastric juices. Merelythe breaking-down process took place upon the food, under the digestive"power," producing chyle, which passed through the mesentery into theliver, which concocted it into blood by its appropriate "power." SoAristotle, On the parts of animals, 11. 3 and in. 3, for the protection of theheart and stomach by the lungs and liver respectively.


to the windpipe joins immediately the throat, composed ofthree large structures of gristle.11 From the throat follows thepharynx, then mouth, then the nasal passages, through each ofwhich we inhale the outside air. The air thus inhaled passesthrough a perforated bone having the qualities of a sieve or of asponge. Thereby the brain takes no harm from the extremes ofquality of the air, as it would if the breath came to it un-checked.12 So once more the Creator is seen, in this way, to havemade a double use of the nasal passages, at once for breathingand for smelling; just as he designed the tongue at once forspeech, for tasting, and as helping mastication. Thus the mostimportant members share with the faculties of the soul theresponsibility for our very existence, and for the inescapableneeds of life. And if any such member has been omitted in thissurvey, it can easily be fitted in with what has been said.

COMMENTARY

44. Respiration not automatic and independent of the soul. Thechapter headed " Of respiration" is, in fact, in two sections, onlythe first of which is about respiration. The great importance ofthis section in the argument of Nemesius turns upon the secondsentence. The effect of purely mental grief upon the physicalprocess of breathing, on the one hand, and our inability to holdour breath for more than a very short time, on the other, exhibitin epitome the terms of partnership of soul and body. We cansay, Here the soul is clearly involved, for there are perceptionand will, the propria of soul. We can never say, Here the soul isnot involved. In different manners, the soul is involved in everypart of our life. The relation of Nemesius to Galen is worked outin detail by Skard, Nemesiosstudien iv, pp. 50-53, with a charac-teristic depreciation of the intelligence of Nemesius.11 i.e., the laryngeal cartilages and the hyoid bone, which together make up

the vocal organs.12 Examination of the bone surrounding the brain led the early physicians

to think of the brain as acting somewhat in parallel with the heart, beingcooled and invigorated by taking in a modicum of air, through therespiratory motion, and passing off the fumes generated by its ownactivity. Chrysostom, in his eleventh homily "On the Statues," sees, inthe crenellations of the skull, a providential outlet for the fumes of thebrain. For this porous bone above the nose, see Aristotle, On the parts ofanimals, 11. 10.


[M. 259.3-263.8.]TEXT

45. It has been said1 that all existing things can be dividedinto those that exist for their own sake, those that exist partlyfor their own sake and partly for the sake of other things, thosethat exist only for the sake of other things, and those whoseexistence is solely contingent and casual.2 An exactly similarclassification is applicable to the members of a living being.Thus, all those organs exist for their own sake of which we saidthat they subserve the centres of government controlling theliving organism. For the framing of those parts is antecedent,and begins the formation of the body. They are called thenatural organs in a special sense, and accordingly, like thebones, they are what are formed in the womb directly from thesemen.3 By contrast, yellow bile is something that exists for itsown sake and also for the sake of something else. For example,it plays a part in digestion, and stimulates excretion. In regardto these operations it may be reckoned simply as one of themembers partaking in the process of nutrition. That, however,is not all, for (just like vital spirit)4 it contributes a degree ofwarmth to the body. On these accounts, therefore, it may beheld to exist for its own sake. As the purging of the blood, onthe other hand, it may be reckoned as existing for the sake ofsomething else.5 The spleen, too, contributes in no smallmeasure to digestion. For as it is by nature sour and astringent,and since it pours out its excess of black bile into the stomach,6

1 Section 8 above.2 Such as showers, in Section 8, with their parallel in the growth of hair, as

described at the end of the present section.3 So Galen, On the use of the parts of the body, xv. 6.4 Literally, "vital powers" (dynameis). Posidonius explained every process

in Nature by postulating a corresponding dynamis to enable it to becarried on. It is a Posidonian phrase that we have here, and used inexactly the same sense as the phrase "vital spirit" is used by the physicians.It seems best, for the sake of making the meaning easy for the reader, totranslate "vital spirit" here. But the difference of words points to thedifference of sources.

5 As an initiator of processes, the bile belongs to the upper end of thehierarchy of members, but as a by-product of the changes of the blood itbelongs to the lower end. It is therefore one of the things that exists partlyfor its own sake, and partly for the sake of other things.

6 The spleen, being a ductless gland, does not in fact discharge into thestomach. The ancients may have been led to believe that it did, by dis-covering in the stomach substances that are common to the black and theyellow bile.


the spleen contracts and braces the stomach, so as to be athorough stimulant to digestion. Beyond that, the spleen is thepurging of the liver, and so may be reckoned as existing to someextent for the sake of the blood. The kidneys are also purges ofthe blood. Moreover they are exciters of sexual desire. For theveins which empty into the testicles, as we said, pass directlythrough the kidneys,7 deriving thence a certain pungency pro-vocative of lust, after the same manner that some pungent juiceunder the skin causes an itch. And inasmuch as the flesh of thetesticles is more delicate than skin, they are the more stung bythis pungency and cause an unreasoning desire to emit semen.These members and their like exist to some extent, therefore,for their own sakes, and to some extent for the sake of otherthings. By contrast again, glands8 and flesh exist only for thesake of other things; that is to say, glands form a stay andsupport for the blood-vessels, which would otherwise, if looseand unsupported, be ruptured by the violent movements of theblood. Flesh, again, serves as a covering for the other members,in summer (by passing off moisture from within) to keep onecool, and in winter to play the part of a woollen felt, wrappingthe other members round. The skin, in turn, is a general cover-ing for the soft flesh and for all the other members internal tothe body. The nature of skin is that of flesh that has been madecallous to its environment and to bodies that come in contactwith it. The skeleton is a support to the whole body, particularlythe backbone which is commonly called the spine of the livingorganism. The nails, in all those creatures that have suchthings, are used for one operation, namely scratching, andbesides that have a particular use that varies from creature tocreature. To many of the animals, for example, those withhooked talons, they were given as a means of defence, andmight be called their organs of combat. In many creatures they

i This statement is incorrect, though there is a relation, on the left side,between the testicular vein and the kidney vein which may explain themistake. The consequences that Nemesius draws are due to the kind ofguess-work whereby early physicians sought to relate conscious experi-ence with anatomical observation, and are not to be taken seriously.Nemesius is right, on the other hand, in seeing that sexual desire hasphysiological causes, so that the morals of chastity are like dealing with anenemy within the gate.

8 The function of glands was not recognized until the sixteenth century.Their proximity to the blood-vessels is due to the fact that they secretetheir fluid from blood. But the early physicians were unable to detect this,and so saw in them nothing but shields for the blood-vessels.


are both a means of defence and armour for their feet, as in thecase of horses and all creatures that have an undivided hoof. Inthe case of men, nails serve us not only to scratch and dispersethe irritation of the skin, but also to enable us to grip lightobjects, and, in fact, we can pick up the lightest of things withthe help of our nails, which make fast their grip by being placedat the back of the finger-tips, and by meeting nail to nail.9

Hair grows out anywhere at random. For the smokiest vapoursthat rise from the body (so to say) congeal and become hairs,10

wherever it may chance. However, the Creator did not makeeven hair to be entirely without profitable uses, but providedthat, in spite of its random growth, it should complete the

9 So Galen, On the use of the parts of the body, 1. 7.!0 Nemesius did not get this from Galen (unless from On temperaments, v. 1),

and it differs from the theory of the origin of hair expounded by Plato inthe TimaeuSy and carried on by Aristotle, that hair is of the substance ofthe skin of the scalp, which is driven out wherever the fire from the brainhas punctured a tiny hole, in the form of a cylindrical thread. But Athan-asius, in his letter to Amun the monk, expounds what seems to be thetheory that Nemesius repeats. Athanasius is arguing that an emission ofseed in sleep carries no defilement of the soul. To prove this, he treats suchemission as just one of a number of excretory actions of the body wherebyit gets rid of what is useless or in excess. This natural system of excrementis the work of God, and therefore cannot defile. Athanasius says that "thesons of the physicians" give a list of widely different forms of excrement.The list starts with the head, of which the excrements are "the hairs, thewaste products of the head, and the watery excrements." It is possible,therefore, that this theory of the origin of hair arose in the Alexandrineschool of medicine. The question why hair grows in one place and not inanother was a puzzle, and can hardly be said to have ceased to be apuzzle still. The growth of hair could not be attached to any point of therecognized nutritional system. And so Nemesius says that hair grows atrandom, and supposes that it is wherever the smokiest waste from thevital processes can find an outlet. This agrees with the suggestion ofAthanasius that the "fumes of the brain" are the cause of man's head ofhair. It thus seemed to bear witness to man's superiority in thought. Hedrew no consequences from a woman's longer hair. From the point ofview of Nemesius, however, hair is something that does not exist for itsown sake or for the sake of anything else, but is contingent and casual,so that it testifies to divine Providence that so purely accidental a thing ismade to serve a useful purpose, just as if it were a designed organ comingunder one of the other categories. That we should have what seems to bean Alexandrine view of hair in a Posidonian context may lend some slightcolour to the view that Origen is the medium through whom Nemesiusobtained his Posidonian ideas. Galen carries the "providential" explan-ation of growth of hair so far, in On the use of the parts of the body, xi. 14, asto say that women have no beards because, (i) as their place is to stayindoors, they do not need mufflers, (ii) they have no dignity to support, asa man has.


covering and be an adornment of various living creatures. Forgoats and sheep it is a covering, and for men an ornament,while for some creatures, such as the lion, it is an ornament anda covering at one and the same time.

COMMENTARY

45, Man's body is a microcosm. The discussion of respiration, inthe previous section, ended by finding some pre-eminent organsto be in particularly close and admirable partnership with thesoul in maintaining the business of life. This observation dis-closes a hierarchy among the organs and parts of the body,completely parallel with the hierarchy of orders of being in thenatural universe. The body is no mere machine, but is ratherto be likened to a team in which there are leaders and sub-ordinates ; and the leaders are initiators, almost as though theywere in competition with the soul. The object of this section, inthe development of the argument, is to underline finally theneed of the soul to make terms with the body, as having in thebody a partner, rather than a mere instrument. This gives theright starting point, as the discussion next goes on to the claimsof the soul to freewill. The hierarchy of being in Nature was thesubject of Section 8, which we saw to be essentially Posidonian,however the matter reached Nemesius. The same can be saidof this section, partly because of the studied parallels, andpartly because of the language. That the greater part of it camethrough Galen is shown in detail by Skard, Nemesiosstudien iv,

PP- 53~56-

[M. 263.9-269.16.]

X X I X . Of voluntary and involuntary acts

TEXT

46. Seeing that we have referred many times already to acts asvoluntary or involuntary, we must needs now state distinctlywhat this means, or we shall not reach an accurate understand-ing of the subject.1 Anyone who would discourse of involuntaryand voluntary acts must first of all lay down some rules andnorms, whereby it may be judged whether anything was done

1 Ch. xxix follows closely the pattern of the opening of the third book of theNicomachean Ethics. Domanski {op. cit.> p. 132, Note 1) sets out the parallelpassages side by side.


voluntarily or not. While, then, everything voluntary is em-bodied in an act, so too nothing can be deemed involuntary un-less embodied in an act. In a little while this shall be demon-strated. Some authorities require that, for there to be anythingtruly involuntary, it must be not merely something suffered, butmust involve doing something. So, before anything else, weought to define an act. An act is something done rationally.2

Acts bring in their train praise or blame. Also the doing ofsome of them brings pleasure, and of others grief. Some againthe doer chooses and others he shuns. Further, of those hechooses, some he would choose at any time, but others only ontheir proper occasions. Things to be shunned divide in thesame way. Again, some acts excite pity and are held excusable,while others are loathed and punished. So, then, the norms forjudging an act to be voluntary are: that it inevitably bringsupon the doer either praise or blame, that it is done withpleasure, and that it is something that some people choose to doeither at any time, or at that particular time. And the norms forjudging an act involuntary are: that it is held excusable ordeserving of pity, and that it is done reluctantly and not bychoice. With these definitions to guide us, we will treat first ofinvoluntary acts.

X X X . Of involuntary acts

TEXT

Involuntary acts are either those done under constraint orthose done unknowingly. In the case of the former, the origina-tion of the deed lies outside the doer. For the cause that con-strains us to do such a deed is something alien to us, and is notourselves. Therefore, what defines a constrained involuntaryact, originating outside the doer, is that the person constrainedcontributed no impulse of his own towards it. The source of theimpulse is therefore said to be the effective cause of the act. Thequestion, then, is whether involuntary acts are such things asthe jettisoning of cargo by sailors who run into a storm, orsomeone consenting to suffer some outrage, or even to do someshameful deed, for the sake of saving his friends or his country.We should reply that such things are voluntary rather than in-voluntary. For it is essential to the definition of an involuntaryact that the person constrained to it contributed no impulse of

2 Therefore no automatic movements of the body are acts.


his own towards it. For in acts such as those mentioned abovethe actors willingly set their own members in motion, and thatis how they cast the cargo into the sea. And in the same waythose do so voluntarily who suffer outrage, or endure someterrible fate, for the sake of a greater good; like Zeno, who bitout his tongue and spat it at the tyrant Dionysius rather thandivulge secret mysteries to him, or like the philosopher Anax-archus, who chose to be pounded to death at the hands of thetyrant Nicocreon rather than betray his friends.3 In general,then, a man does not suffer or do anything involuntarily whenhe either embraces a lesser evil out of fear of greater ills, oraccepts it in the hope of a greater good which he cannot other-wise successfully attain. For what he does he does by his ownpreference and choice. And when such deeds are done they aredeliberate, although not in themselves such as a man wouldchoose to do. Thus, in these acts, the involuntary and voluntaryare mingled. They are involuntary, as regards the deed in it-self, but voluntary when the circumstances are taken intoaccount. For apart from those circumstances no one wouldchoose to do those deeds. Nevertheless the praise or blameattending such acts demonstrates that they are voluntary. Forthere will be no word of praise or blame when things are doneinvoluntarily.

It is not easy to decide which course is preferable to the other.In most cases one ought to choose what is grievous rather thanwhat is shameful, as Susanna and Joseph did.4 Not invariably,however. For, to be sure, Origen, rather than submit to be3 We must not suppose Nemesius to have had any care for historical

accuracy in writing this passage. He was dealing with what, to his age,figured as aretology rather than history. Zeno and Anaxarchus were com-monplace types of philosophic coolness and courage, and appear togetheras such in Tertullian's Apology, ch. 50, though the stories that he attachesto them are not quite the same. Diogenes Laertius, whose Lives of theSophists was most probably written in the mid-third century of our era,gives us Zeno and Anaxarchus in that order. The Lives must be regardedas mingled of legend and history. This Zeno, says Diogenes, was caught ina conspiracy against the tyrant of Lipari, either Nearchus or Diomedon,and gives two versions of what followed, the second of which is the tongue-spitting episode. Anaxarchus, friend of Alexander the Great, Diogenessays, landed in Crete, where his foe Nicocreon was tyrant, who had himpounded to death in a hollow of the rock. The dying philosopher cried out"You can pound the carcass of Anaxarchus, but Anaxarchus you cannotpound." Clement of Alexandria and Origen both repeat this story, whichhad become a favourite, centuries before Diogenes Laertius.

4 For these examples, see The History of Susanna 5:23, and Gen. 39:1 2respectively.


abused at the hands of the Ethiopians, offered incense,5 and sosuffered the loss of all; so far is it from being easy to reach theright decision in such circumstances! And still more difficultthan deciding what is right is to have the courage of one's con-victions. For dreadful things in prospect are not so staggering aswhen they are coming upon us. Sometimes, indeed, after wehave made our decision, we abandon it when the dreadedmoment comes. This fate befell some who were confessors. Atthe outset, that is, they were steadfast, but in the end they gavein, proving, when they actually felt the agony, not to be hardyenough.

Let no one suppose that because lascivious desire or angerhave an inciting source outside the subject, these transgressionsare involuntary. For sure, it may be said that the charms of thecourtesan were what made the man that looked upon her crazyfor indulgence, and that it was the man who gave the provoca-tion that excited someone's anger. But even though these mo-tions had a first cause external to the subject, the subjectsnevertheless did their deeds themselves with their own propermembers. These cases do not fall within the definition of in-voluntary acts, because the subjects provided themselves witha cause for giving way, in that poor discipline made them easy

5 Epiphanius, in his Panarion (Book of all the heresies), Bk. II, Heresy 64(Origen) ch. 2, tells us that, in view of the steadfastness of Origen, and hisinfluence for the Christian cause, the persecutors thought of the diabolicalplan of giving him the choice of offering incense to an idol or beinghanded over to an Ethiopian to be subjected to abuse. He could not bearthe thought of the latter fate, and agreed to offer incense. In making thischoice, he did not do so with any willingness, but the persecutors threwincense on to his hand, and he shook it off on to the altar. So he both fell,by the judgement of the confessors, from his status of confessor, and wasexpelled from the communion of the Church. This took place in Alex-andria, and Origen, unable to bear the shame, removed to Palestine. Sowrote Epiphanius, before 380. The earlier evidences bearing on the re-moval of Origen from Alexandria to Palestine are quite incompatiblewith this story of Epiphanius, who indicates that it is malicious hearsaywhen he says that many do not credit Origen with having been reluctant,in making his choice. The slanderous explanation of Origen's removal toPalestine is to be explained by the Origenistic controversy which wasbrewing up in the later years of the fourth century. There were certainlymonastic circles that thought nothing too bad to say of Origen.

In spite of his turning the single Ethiopian into Ethiopians, there is noreason to doubt that Nemesius depends upon Epiphanius for this passage.He probably supposed that it was among the Ethiopians that Origen wasbeing persecuted. Was not Ethiopia neighbour to Egypt? What concernedNemesius was the casuistry which the story afforded. Ecclesiastical cen-sure pointed significantly at the guilt of the choice which Origen made.

25—cj.


captives of their passions. To be sure, those who so act areblamed, as submitting to an evil willingly. So it is evident thatit is a voluntary act. For the subjects find pleasure in what theydo. And we have shown that an involuntary act is grievous tothe doer.

So much for an act that is involuntary as being performedunder constraint. It remains to discuss acts that are involuntarybecause the subject does not know what he is doing.

COMMENTARY

46. What acts are truly involuntary. An act is not involuntarybecause done under some stress from without. The last sectionshave dealt with the soul, in its self-determination, as limited bythe structure and mechanism of the physical organism. Thenext step is to show how this modified self-determination ex-tends beyond the body, into the relations of the subject withthe outside world. Here Nemesius discovers that there is reallyno such thing as an involuntary act which the subject does be-cause compelled to do it by some force outside himself. For inall instances that appear to fulfil these conditions, it turns outthat the subject could only be induced to do the deed becausehis own will was partly consenting. So when men excuse them-selves on such grounds, it is a false excuse. The conclusion whichNemesius has thus reached in this section is that "an involuntaryact performed under constraint" is a contradictio in adjecto. Theonly involuntary acts fall under the next chapter.

[M. 270.1-274.7.]

X X X I . Of the involuntary act that is due to ignorance

TEXT

47. There are many things that we do in ignorance that we areglad, afterwards, that we did; like a man who should kill a foewithout meaning to, and is glad to have him dead, none theless. This sort of act one cannot call voluntary, and yet neithercan they be called involuntary. Then again, there are thingsthat we do in ignorance, and grieve at having done them. Theseacts have been called involuntary, on the ground that they arethings the doing of which brings sorrow in its train. So, then,things done in ignorance are of two sorts, one producing aresult that was merely not intended, and the other a result that


was definitely not desired. Our next step is to consider theseacts whose results are wholly undesired.For the mere unintendedlies nearer to the voluntary, as having an element of thevoluntary in it, mingled with the other; since it begins as un-intended, but ends as voluntary. For what began as involuntarywas turned, by the result, into voluntary. That is why the in-voluntary is defined as follows: an involuntary act is one which,besides being unintentional, is grieved over, and a cause of regret.

Again, doing a thing through ignorance is one thing, anddoing it without knowing is another. For if the reason of ournot knowing is something within our control, it is true that wedo not know what we are doing, but we do not do it throughignorance. For example, a man does some ill deed when drunk,or in a rage. In the one case, drunkenness, and in the other,anger, is responsible for what he did, and yet did voluntarily.For it lay in his power not to get drunk. So he was his ownreason for not knowing what he did. Things of that sort are saidto be done not in ignorance but in blindness; and those are nottermed involuntary, but voluntary. For this reason, those whodo such things are censured by good men. For if such a one hadnot got drunk, he would not have done what he did. Gettingdrunk was voluntary on his part, and so, clearly, those thingsthat he did when drunk were voluntary.

But it is when we have not ourselves provided the cause ofour not knowing, but it simply fell out so, that we act throughignorance; for example, a man is shooting on the recognizedrange, and his arrow kills his father who chanced to be crossingit. So these examples prove that a man who does not know whatis fitting, or esteems bad things as good, cannot claim to be thevictim of an involuntary act, since his ignorance springs fromhis own wickedness, and he is surely reprehensible. But blameattaches only to voluntary acts. Surely then, it is not involuntaryignorance if it is of universals or of general notions, or of thingsthat lie within our own control.* Only ignorance of some par-

1 Aristotle defines a universal as "whatever may naturally be predicated ofmany things." The word "naturally," in this definition, contains thegreat assumption that there is an order in the universe which makes itintelligible. Aristotle differed from Plato in the explanation which he gaveof the fact that the mind of man is aware of these things that "may bepredicated of many things." They agree as to the fact itself; also that thisawareness, unlike immediate sense-perception, is exempt from accidentalerror. On universals, therefore, there can be no genuine ignorance, sothat, if a person acts as if some universal were otherwise than all men areaware that it is, he is not the victim of ignorance, but is himself excluding


ticular fact is involuntary ignorance. Of this or that fact we maybe ignorant without wanting to be so, but when we ignore someuniversal, that is voluntary on our part.

Now that these terms have been defined, the next thing thatmust be said is what we include under "particular facts." Theyare what the teachers of rhetoric2 call "details of circumstantialimportance;" who a person is, whom his act affects, what theact is, to what is it done, where, when, how, why; in otherwords, the character of the doer, the nature of the act, themeans, the place, the time, the manner, the cause. The charac-ter can be important, of either the doer, or of the victim of theact, for example, the latter being the father of the man whoshot him without knowing. The act means what actually wasdone, for example, that someone was blinded, although theintention was only to slap his face. The means is exemplified bythe case of the man who threw what he thought was a piece ofpummice, when in fact it was rock. The place comes in, forexample, as the bend in a narrow passage, where one collidedwith another whom he did not know was coming. An exampleof the time is night, when a man slew his friend supposing himto be an enemy. An example of the manner is a light, and by nomeans violent, blow, killing someone. For the ignorance lay innot knowing that a light blow would kill him. An example ofthe cause is where someone gives a person medicine to makehim well, and the patient dies, because that medicine proves tobe poison to that particular man. While not even a lunaticcould be ignorant of all these critical circumstances, anyonecould be ignorant of most of them, or of the more important,

a knowledge which he possesses (e.g., of what is true, good, or beautiful).A general notion is something the awareness of which is present to a

man in the same intuitive way as his recognition of universals, and isequally exempt from the accidents of experience. For example, everyoneknows without experiment that the shortest way across a field is not roundthe sides. There is a volitional element about awareness itself. Men canignore the universal, as they can a general notion. Equally they can ignoretheir own exercise of volition, which is, of necessity, something theknowledge of which is intimate to the subject himself.

2 Hellenic culture, during the fourth century of our era, was marked by adisproportionate prestige of rhetoric. The "details of circumstantial im-portance" of which Nemesius speaks, are those critical for artistic perfec-tion and clarity in setting out a rhetorical theme. Nemesius sees that theseare exactly the details which are critical for action truly adapted to thecircumstances of life, and so are those "particulars" (as opposed touniversals) on which a person may be accidentally, and so guiltlessly,ignorant.


and act in ignorance. By the most important critical circum-stances we mean, for what purpose the act was done and whatform it took; in other words, the cause and the effect.

COMMENTARY

47. Culpable ignorance makes an act not involuntary. Only trulyinvoluntary ignorance is excusable, while much ignorance isvoluntary and the consequent action is likewise voluntary, andtherefore is recognized as reprehensible. Domanski {op. cit.,p. 135, Note 1) again exhibits, by setting passages side by side,the influence of the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. m upon thissection.

[M. 274.8-277.3.]X X X I I . Of acts that are voluntary

TEXT

48. We have seen that there are two sorts of involuntary act;those done through ignorance,1 and those done under con-straint. Voluntary acts are the exact opposite to each of thesetwo groups. A voluntary act is done neither under constraintnor through ignorance. That, forsooth, is not constrained whichoriginates within ourselves. And that is not done through ig-norance, where there is no particular circumstance that directlyor indirectly affects the act, of which we did not know. Takingthese two qualifications together, we define a voluntary act asone which originates within the doer, who, for his part, is awareof every circumstance attending upon his act.

The next question is whether natural functions, such asdigestion or growth, are voluntary acts. It is clear that they areneither voluntary nor involuntary; since the categories ofvoluntary and involuntary rest upon our having a power ofchoice. In such things as digestion or growth, we have no powerof choice; so that, although we are by no means ignorant of theway in which these things work, yet inasmuch as these pro-cesses are not within our power of choice, they cannot be termedeither voluntary or involuntary. We have shown that deeds1 The last chapter has removed from the field of the involuntary those acts

wherein the doer is responsible for having blinded himself, or where theresult, though unintended, was welcome, while ch. xxx cleared out of theway excuses based on the plea of having acted under constraint. So, inseeking the definition of a voluntary act by way of antithesis, its oppositeis seen to be an act done under external pressure and conditioned byignorance to which no culpability attached.


wrought in wrath or lust are to be accounted voluntary, on theground that the corresponding right conduct is praised, whileoffending therein is blamed, or even abominated. Moreover,such deeds carry pleasure or grief in their train, and originatewithin the doer. For it was within the power of the subject toavoid falling an easy prey to his passions, seeing that such con-duct can be corrected by good upbringing. If this were not thecase; if, that is, such actions were to be judged involuntary,then no beast or child can ever be said to do anything volun-tarily; which is absurd. For we see how readily beasts andchildren come to be fed, needing no compelling. They comeunder their own impulsion, and knowing what they are about.They know all about feeding, and so soon as they see food, theyare pleased, and hasten, as those that come to something that iswell understood; while they are grieved if they meet with dis-appointment.

The criteria of the voluntary are, therefore, pleasure in theattaining, and grief in being disappointed; whence it is clearthat anyone acting in lust or anger acts voluntarily. For evenanger carries its own pleasure. If it were otherwise; and if onemight not call the deeds of wrath and lust voluntary, ethicalvirtues would have no meaning. For these consists in strikingthe just measure2 with regard to the passions. If the passions areinvoluntary, so too is the corresponding virtuous conduct. Fordeeds of virtue are, in fact, done under emotion.3

2 Aristotle {Nicomachean Ethics, n. 6-8) teaches that virtue consists in reason-able moderation, avoiding excess on the one hand and deficiency on theother. To be devoid of natural passion would therefore be a defect, andnot a virtue, just as much as an excessive giving vent to such passion. Thisdefinition of virtue is welcome to Nemesius because it involves the recog-nition that it lies within a man's control how far he indulges his passion.The doctrine of the mean was so well known that Nemesius appeals to itwithout elaboration.

3 "Done with emotion," literally, done according to passion. Nemesius isclinging to the Aristotelian ethic, according to which, any act of virtueinvolves some passion exercised in moderate degree. We might paraphrasethis as "involving a balancing of passions." The Alexandrine Fathers,Clement and Origen, sought to progress beyond metriopathy, or reasonedmoderation, to apathy, or the negation of passion. According to them,supernatural Christian virtue was the fruit of one sole passion, the desirefor God. Their doctrine promoted the cause of Christian asceticism, butmight easily come to be dominated by Platonic scorn for the body and itsattributes, and was unsuited to apologetic, above all, in Syria. And whileit is clear that Nemesius held Christian asceticism in reverence, heobviously took the right line as an apologist, in working from the ethic ofAristotle and his doctrine of the mean.


Now no one would call that involuntary which is done afterconsideration and by free choice, where the impulse and the aimare from within ourselves, and where we have full and detailedknowledge of the circumstances. It has been proved that, whereacts originate from within ourselves, they are voluntary. Butsince we have made frequent mention of free choice, and ofthings as lying within our power, we must now go on to discussthe nature of free choice.

COMMENTARY

48. For some deeds our responsibility is undeniable. The aim ofNemesius is now directed towards the establishment of man'smoral responsibility. Chs. XXIX-XXXII are devoted to an em-pirical psychology of action which brings out the fact that fullydeliberate acts are far from being the sole exemplars of thevoluntary, in human life, and that casuistry is so complex be-cause of the admixture of reaction to circumstance with what ispurely voluntary in our conduct. As an apologist, he begins hisethical discussion at a secular level, and proceeds thence, stepby step, to a Christian conclusion.

[M. 277.4-282.11.]

XXXIII. Of an act of choice.

TEXT

49. What, then, is an act of choice? Is it, or is it not, the samething as a voluntary act ? Seeing that everything that is done bychoice is also voluntary. The answer is in the negative, for thetwo things are not convertible as would be the case if choosingand what is voluntary were but one and the same thing, where-as we find that the scope of the term "voluntary" is the wider.For every free choice is voluntary, but not everything that isvoluntary is done by free choice. Children, for example, andanimals do things voluntarily, but certainly without deliberatelychoosing to. Anything that we do when angry, provided it iswithout premeditation, we do voluntarily, but it is certainly notdone by an act of choice. Or, to take another example, somedear friend suddenly makes his appearance. We are so willingto see him as even to be delighted, but not because his comingwas by our act of choice. Or a man unexpectedly finding atreasure is ready enough to accept it as a godsend, but not asdue to his act of choice. From all these examples it may be


gathered that to act voluntarily is not the same thing as an actof choice. Can it really be, then, that choosing is the same thingas desiring? Once more we answer in the negative. For we candistinguish three kinds of desiring, lust, anger, and simplywanting a thing. But it is clear that neither anger nor lust is anact of choice, as may be seen from the fact that while men sharewith irrational animals lust and anger, they do not share withthem their faculty of choice. For if while we have anger andlust in common with them, we differ from them when it comesto the faculty of choice, it is clear that the faculty of choice isone thing, but anger and lust are quite another. An intemperateperson, in being overcome by his craving and acting accord-ingly, yet not by an act of choice, points us the same moral. Infact, free choice is at war with lust, over such a man, whereas iffree choice and lust were one and the same thing there could notbe war between them. Again, when the disciplined man acts ashe has deliberately chosen, he does not act according to lust.

Once more, wanting something is not the same as choosingit. This is clear from the fact that not all the things that onemay want are properly objects of choice. For we say that wewant to keep well, but no one would say that he chose to keepwell; no more would one say that wanting to be rich was thesame thing as choosing to be rich. Wanting is a right word touse even when what we want is impossible of attainment;choice is the right word only when the thing lies within ourpower to attain it. So we may rightly say, "I want to be im-mortal." What we do not say is, "I choose to be immortal."For wanting applies to the end desired, while choice concernsitself with the means towards the end, the relation being thesame as that between what we want, and what we deliberatehow to get. For, what we want is the final result, while what wedeliberate about is the means for reaching that result. It re-mains, then, that we make our object of choice only thosethings that we think we may be able to bring about. We wantthings of a kind that do not fall within our powers, as, for ex-ample, victory for a particular general. It is thus conclusivelyshown that an act of choice differs at once from anger, fromlust, and from merely wanting a thing. Now that it is not thesame thing as an opinion, either, is plain, both for like reasons,and also for different ones. For opinion is concerned not onlywith things that we might possibly do, but may equally haveregard to eternal verities. Further, while we call an opiniontrue or false, we do not apply the adjectives true or false to an


act of choice. Again, while opinion may be with regard touniversals, choice has only to do with particulars. For choice isof things to be done, and such things are specific.

Neither is deliberation synonymous with an act of choice, asthough it were an actual plan. For deliberation is an enquiry asto things that one might do. But when choice has been made ofa course, it has been decided upon by process of deliberation.It is plain, then, that deliberation is about things that are stillthe subject of enquiry, but choice follows only when decisionhas been reached.

So now that we have stated what an act of choice is not, letus go on to say what it is. It is, then, something that minglesplan, judgement, and desire. It is neither pure desire, norjudgement, nor even plan in isolation, but is a combination ofall three. For just as we say that a living creature is composedof soul and body, and that the body by itself is not the livingcreature, nor the soul by itself, but soul and body together, solikewise do we define an act of choice; that is to say, it is a kindof plan, followed by deliberation, which ends in a decision. Itis clear from etymology,1 however, that an act of choice is nota mere willing of something in the abstract. For an act of choiceis a preferring one thing to another. No one prefers a thing,unless after deliberating, or chooses it, except he has passed ajudgement. But, as we do not purpose forthwith to translate intodeed every possibility that we esteem as good, an act of choice,and the course of action chosen by prior decision of the will, onlyfollow when desire has been roused. Of necessity, therefore,choice and plan concern themselves about the same matters.And from these considerations we may gather that an act ofchoice is either the desire for some end within our power ofattainment, reached after deliberation, or a deliberating aboutthat end, incited by desire. For, when we make our choice, thenwe desire whatever it is that will has preferred.

But since we said that choice and plan concern themselvesabout the same matters, we will next make clear what are thethings with which planning is concerned, and upon which wedeliberate.

COMMENTARY

49. Towards defining an act of choice. An act of free choice is amore specialized and complex thing than many think. So1 Free choice, in Greek, is proairesis, literally, choosing one thing before

another, as the following sentence says.


Nemesius demonstrates in this section, and again, the JVico-machean Ethics, Bk. m, provides the model. (See Domanski,op. cit., p. 140, Note 1 and p. 144, Notes 1 and 2.)

We now see the importance of the hint given in the lastsection but one, in the mention of the rhetoricians. The presentsection is, in fact, a valuable study in psychology. But it ispursued as a study in lexicography. The rhetoricians makeexact definitions of the meanings of Greek words. And in thisway they organize and make available the unconscious insightsof past Greek thought, which has resulted in imprinting on thewords their refinements of meaning. Nemesius' description ofthe natural, limited, and responsible character of human freechoice may well be original. But it is presented as somethingthat anyone could deduce from the established use of language.

[M. 283.1-288.15.]

X X X I V . What things are subject for deliberation

TEXT

50. Before we try to say what things are subject for delibera-tion, our best course is to define the difference between de-liberation and enquiry. For deliberation is not the same thingas enquiry, even though anyone who deliberates is making en-quiry about something; for all of which the two things arewidely different. For example, it is matter for enquiry whetherthe sun is greater than the earth. But no one would say, I amdeliberating of the sun being greater than the earth. For enquiryis the category including deliberation, as being the moregeneral term. Every deliberation is, in a sense, enquiry, but notevery enquiry is deliberation, as we indicated.

Sometimes we talk of considering, rather than use the worddeliberation, as when one says, I am considering whether it istime to put to sea,1 while we talk of considering, in other con-nections, such as learning, as when one says, I am consideringmathematical propositions, not I am deliberating about suchpropositions. We often get our thoughts confused if we do notgive discerning heed to our use of such terms, but take forsynonyms what, in fact, are not synonyms. But once we haveclearly established the distinction of meaning between "con-

1 One would deliberate whether to go by sea or overland. But if, then, onechose to go by sea, one would have to consider whether conditions weresuitable for putting to sea.


sider" and "deliberate upon," we can then safely approach thequestion, what are subjects for deliberation.

We deliberate, then, about things that depend on our free-will and are within the compass of what we can accomplish;things, further, of which the outcome remains uncertain, that isto say, things that could happen in one way, but equally couldhappen in another way. We say, "dependent on our free-will,"because deliberation only applies where there is something tobe done, and deeds are what are dependent on our free-will.For we do not deliberate about points of what is called "theoret-ical philosophy;" no, nor about God, nor about things that arebound to happen (by which we mean things that are alwayshappening in a particular way, as, for example, the seasonalpassage of the year), nor of things that, while they happenalways in the same way, happen only at intervals, such as thesetting and rising of the sun; nor, again, of things that, thoughthey do not by nature happen always in the same kind of way,yet do so for the most part, such as, that a sixty-year old man isgenerally grey, or that a youth of twenty has down on his chin;nor, again, of things that fall out now one way and now another,without any rule, like the occurrence of showers or droughts orhailstorms; nor, again, of things that happen by luck, as we say,on the ground that they are among the less obvious possibilities.It is with this manner of things in mind that we say that sub-jects for deliberation are either "dependent on our free-will" orwithin the compass of "our agency," seeing that we do notdeliberate on behalf of every man, nor as to every kind ofmatter, but only concerning such as depend upon our free-willor lie within the compass of our agency. For example, we do notdeliberate how our foes, or people living in distant lands, wouldbest govern themselves; though that is proper matter for theirdeliberation. Neither, even, do we deliberate about all thingsthat can be done by our agency or lying within the scope of ourfree-will. There must be the further condition that the outcomeremains uncertain. For if the outcome is manifest and acknow-ledged, then the matter is no longer subject for deliberation.Nor is deliberation in place concerning works or practice ofscience or art, for these (excepting a few arts that are calledskilled, such as the art of healing, or of gymnastics, or of navi-gation)2 have their fixed rules. We do deliberate about theskilled arts, as well as about whatever else lies within our power,2 Aristotle gives these examples of skilled arts in the Nicomachean Ethics,

Bk. in, ch. 3, with the addition of the financier's art.

NEMESIUS OF EMESA

is done by our agency, has its outcome uncertain, and is capableof being done in this way or in that. Further, it has been shownthat deliberation is not about the outcome, but about stepsleading up to it. For we deliberate not whether to be rich buthow and by what means we shall get rich. To put the matter ina nutshell, we deliberate only about such things as are in-differently possible. And it is essential to make this distinctionlest we leave anything in the argument lacking in precision.

The powers3 whereby we are able to achieve anything arecalled our faculties; for we have a faculty corresponding toeverything that we can do. If we have not the appropriatefaculty, neither do we accomplish the corresponding deeds. So,then, the deed depends on faculty, and faculty upon our being.For the deed issues from the faculty, and the faculty proceedsfrom the being, in which, also, it reposes. So, then, as we havesaid, there are these three things, each in turn derived from theone before, namely, the potential doer, the faculty, and thepossible deed. The being is that of the potential doer, the facultyis that which enables us to do the thing, and the possible deed issuch as has that nature. Of possible deeds, some are unavoid-able, and others open to our choice. Unavoidable things aresuch as we cannot prevent, or things whose opposites would beimpossible. An open possibility is one that can be prevented, orone of which the opposite is possible. For example, it is un-avoidable for a living man to breathe, and the opposite to this,namely, to live without breathing, is impossible. On the otherhand, an open possibility is that it will rain today, but theopposite is equally possible, that it will not rain today. Again,of open possibilities, some are called probable, some improb-able, and some indifferent. That a man of sixty will prove to begrey exemplifies the probable, that one of that age will not begrey, the improbable, and that he will be walking about or willnot be walking about, or in general that he will do a particularthing or leave it undone, exemplifies the even chance.

So, then, the only things whereupon we deliberate are theindifferent possibilities. It is an indifferent possibility if wecould do either the thing or its opposite. For if we had not thatdouble possibility within our power, to do either the thing orits opposite, we should not deliberate. For no one deliberateswhere the outcome is assured, or about something impossible.Now if we can take only one of two opposite courses, and the

3 From here, Nemesius' source for the end of the section appears to bePlutarch, On fate, 6 (Domanski, p. 148, Note 1).


course that we can take is assured, and beyond question, theopposite is impossible.

COMMENTARY

50. The scope of deliberation. The limited scope of our moralfreedom is here illuminated by investigating the process ofdeliberating upon an action to be taken in the future.

The theme of this chapter is developed from the argument ofthe opening chapters of the third book of the Nicomachean Ethicsof Aristotle. Nemesius mentions the sixth book of the Ethics inSection 65 below, and there in terms which suggest that he hasbefore his eyes, not the text of Aristotle so much as a com-mentary. The development of the psychology of deliberation byreference to the use of language, in this present chapter, istypical of the fourth-century rhetorical interest. It may bederived by Nemesius, therefore, from a contemporary com-mentary on the Ethics, and not be the fruit of his originalspeculation. (Domanski, op. cit., pp. 145-7, Notes.)

[M.289. 1-294. 3]

XXXV. Concerning destiny

TEXT

51. Those who find in the courses of the stars1 the cause ofeverything that happens are not only in conflict with theaccepted notions of mankind but are bound to denouncepolitics as vain. For laws are absurd, courts (in that those theypunish are guiltless) are an extravagance, and blame and praiseare alike irrational; yes, and prayers are profitless, if everythinghappens just as it is fated to do. Heaven's providence and man'sreligion are banished at one stroke; added to which, man isfound to be nothing but a plaything of celestial motion, seeingthat the moving stars not only move man's bodily members tovarious actions but the thoughts of his soul as well. In a word,those who assert such things destroy the concept of the possible,at the same moment that they do away with free-will. And,

1 The dogma that all terrestrial affairs were ruled by the conjunctions ofthe planets, and movements of the other celestial bodies, was of oldstanding in Syria. The popular astrological fatalism to which it gave risetreated moral responsibility as illusion. Nemesius shows, however, thatsuch fatalism makes nonsense of all serious thought, while itself restingupon a fantastic and baseless assumption.


thereby, they do nothing less than bring to ruin the wholeconcept of the universe. Then, too, they make the stars them-selves wicked, as now procuring adulteries, and now incitingmurders. Or, rather than the stars, it is God their Creator thatbears the blame in their place, seeing that he made them suchas would pass on to us an impetus to evil deeds which we cannotresist. So the monstrous doctrine of these men not only has suchbearing upon human politics, but also denounces God as thecause of the most abominable crimes. Withal, their hypothesisis incapable of proof, and there is no need for us to take anyfurther notice of it, so manifest is its blasphemous and absurdcharacter.

We turn, then, to those who say that things are, at the sametime, both in our own power and fated. For, they say, fatecontributes something to each thing that is in process; as, forexample, in causing water to be cold, each several plant tobear its own appropriate fruit, stones to fall and flames to rise;and, accordingly, fate causes any living creature both to obeyits dictates, and also to move of its own accord.2 When nothingexternal and fated opposes such movement, then it is perfectlypossible for us (they say) to go as we please; we shall accom-plish all that we set out to do. The advocates of this doctrinebelong to the Stoics, to wit, Chrysippus3 and Philopator,4 withmany other distinguished members of their school. But the onlything they succeed in proving is that all things happen inaccordance with destiny.

For, if they say that, side by side with the working of destiny,we are granted impulses of our own, which are sometimesthwarted by fate but sometimes not, it is clear that everything,including what seems to lie within our own power, falls out as

2 The Stoics tended to identify destiny with Nature, the world-soul, andGod. Such identification only gives rise to difficulty when man as a moralagent is under consideration. To this difficulty the Stoics blinded them-selves by saying that the difference between a moral agent, and all otherthings in the universe, is, itself, dictated by Nature.

3 Chrysippus is here selected from the founders of the School as the mostdeterminist.

4 Our only knowledge of Philopator outside this passage is from an auto-biographical chapter (ch. 8) in Galen's work, On the detection and cure ofdisorderly passions, which each may carry out for himself (R. Chartier 's Parisedition, 1679, Vol. vi, pp. 531-2). Galen says that, when he was turned 14,he started hearing lectures in philosophy, at Pergamum, chiefly those of adisciple of the Stoic Philopator. This should date Philopator as earlysecond century, A.D. and make his book, Concerning destiny, one of thelatest in the Stoic tradition.


it is destined. Against these teachers, therefore, we repeat ourformer arguments, and prove their opinion absurd. For, if thesame causes persist, there is, as they argue, every necessity thatthe same things should go on happening, and not in such wiseas to give now one result and now another; since it has beenassigned to them from all eternity how they should happen.Needs is, then, that the impulse of a living creature circum-stanced, in every instance and in all respects, by the same setof causes should be as destined. And if our impulse attends uponinevitable causes, where is there anything left that is in ourpower ? What lies within our power we must be free to do or notto do. There would be such freedom if, the circumstancesremaining the same, it were possible for us now to take theinitiative, and now to abstain. But if the impulse itself attendsupon inevitable causes, it is plain that all to do with impulseitself is fated, even though it be by our agency and in accord-ance with our own nature, impulse and judgement, that ittakes place. For, if initiative were such a thing as might possiblynot be fulfilled, then the premiss, as stated, is a false one,namely that, circumstanced by the same causes, the same resultsmust, of necessity, follow.

When it is applied to irrational and inanimate creatures, theargument follows the same course. For if they assign initiativeto the category of things that are within our own power,because it is a natural quality with us, why should it not besaid that it is in the power of fire to burn or not, as it likes,seeing that it is natural in fire to burn ? And that, in a way, iswhat seems to be implied by Philopator in his book, ConcerningDestiny,5 Surely, then, what we do under the working of fate,5 To appreciate the force of this argument, one must know that the Stoics

attributed the order in the world to a "seminal principle" (or, as we shouldsay, "formula") operative throughout the whole process of the universe.This "formula," conceived as essentially rational, could be personalizedas Zeus, or the world-soul, or could be treated as impersonal, as Nature ordestiny. A separate seminal principle, or "formula," was also attributedto each rational being, as the explanation of the rational form of his be-haviour. The irrational in human conduct was explained as being thework of the passions, which had, therefore, to be regarded as at once anevil, relatively to the individual, and a product of Nature, which, quauniversal, must be good. It could, therefore, make no difference whetherthe seminal principle of reason was victorious over the passions, orwhether the passions, as a product of Nature, disordered the rationalpattern of life in the individual. Either way, it was a victory of Natureover Nature, and never could it be the triumph of a moral agent overdestiny.

By thus exposing the illogicality of the Stoic ethic, Nemesius argues

4OO NEMESIUS OF EMESA

lies not within our free will. For the same argument might beapplied to harp or pipes or any other instruments, and indeedto all irrational and inanimate things, when used by anyone;and that would be absurd.

COMMENTARY

51. Determinism is to be avoided. The transition from deliberationto determinism has been prepared for by Nemesius having inview the work of Plutarch On fate.

Nemesius, whose investigation of moral responsibility hasvery much whittled down the field of human freedom, nowturns to oppose the doctrine that there is no such freedom. Heis aware that, although the moral interest was so strong inStoicism, recent Stoic thinkers had, in fact, acquiesced in thatdoctrine. It was the characteristic weakness of Stoicism thatits science was determinist, while its ethic called for the recog-nition of moral responsibility. This inconsistency is the objectof Nemesius' attack.

[M.294. 4-298. 9]

X X X V I . Of the dependence of destiny upon the stars

TEXT

52. Now let us answer the Egyptian sages who say that, whileit is true that destiny depends upon the stars, it can be modifiedthrough prayers and sacrifices for the averting of evil. For, theysay, there are certain kinds of cultus that work upon even thesevery stars, fully to propitiate them and certain other and higherpowers which are able to render them favourable. For thisreason, they say, were devised prayers and cultus offered to thegods, and the sacrifices for the averting of evil. We retort that

that, when determinism is allowed into a view of the universe, it ends indriving out every kind of indeterminism. Conversely, if there be found inthe universe any indeterminate, such as a man whose actions can becovered by no formula which answers to the general pattern of Nature, norealm can be vindicated for determinism, and any appearance of an ironrule of fate will prove illusory.

It may be gathered, from the form of Nemesius' allusion to Philopator'sbook, that the later Stoics, faced by systems that made moral respons-ibility a matter of concern and anxiety, laid their emphasis upon ataraxia,the untroubled state of being oneself, without moral struggle and itsemotional disturbance. It was from such a quietism that Nemesius mostneeded to dissociate himself, if his somewhat subtle Christian ethic was tobe taken seriously.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 4OI

they thus make destiny one of the contingent, and not one ofthe determined, things. What is contingent is indefinite, andwhat is indefinite remains an unknown quantity. That is asituation that both brings to naught every possibility of pre-diction, and in particular, the kind which is called the castingof horoscopes, which these Egyptian sages themselves advocatebefore all other kinds, as being an effective and genuineexpedient.

Now if they say that the influence of the configurations ofthe stars upon human destiny is both manifest and can bedeciphered by the experts, and that, when the horoscope failsof its proper fulfilment, it is because divinely hindered, we thenretort that this assertion also is absurd. In the first place, theythus make prayer and the cultus of the gods, the one thing thatlies in our power, when nothing whatsoever besides does lie inour power. In the second place, we will dispute their conten-tion that, while the whole of human activity and choiceotherwise is determined by the particular conjunction of thestars, recourse to prayer alone lies within our power. For it isimpossible to bring forward any reason why this should be so,or any necessity for it. In the third place, if there is some artand method of averting evil by sacrifices, whereby destinedevents may be thwarted from fulfilment, either this method isaccessible to all men, or it is accessible to some, but not toothers. If, then, it is accessible to all, there is nothing to preventthe fulfilment of destiny being totally overthrown, once all menhave learned this art of thwarting the influence of the stars. If,on the other hand, this art is accessible to some men but not toothers, what manner of men are they, and who makes thediscrimination? But if it was destiny itself that some men shouldbe worshippers of the divine and others not, it will be found thatwe are back once more at all things being fated. For this hasnow become clear about prayer and divine cultus (the solething, as they assert, that is in our power), that it is not inferiorto the power of destiny, but superior. If, then, it was not destinybut something else that was responsible for these things, thisother cause will then appear more properly to hold the placeof destiny. For the possibility or hopelessness of reaching asuccessful issue by prayer settles the whole question of thepower of destiny. For, to those who reach such an issue, destinyis nothing, and to those who cannot reach any such issue, allis destined. Thus it will be found that, to some men, all thingsare destined, while, to others there is no such thing as being

26—G.J.


destined. It is plain that whoever so orders things is mostrightly the bearer of the name of destiny, and thus we shallfind, once more, that all is destined; while, moreover, thatagency, whether a spirit or some less obvious form of destiny,that apportions to mankind these two conditions, is (we shallsee) unjust. For it does not share out to men, according to theirdeserving, knowledge of the way to propitiate the gods. For,wherein is this man more worthy than that, when all are meretools of fate, and no one does anything of his own free will, oreven so much as wills anything ? For if things happen in thismanner, no man is either righteous or unrighteous. So, no onedeserves favour, or is undeserving of it. And that rulership isunjust, that does not give impartially to those who are all onthe same footing.

COMMENTARY

52. The astrological doctrine of the Egyptian priests refuted. Theancient Egyptian priesthoods were famous among the Greeksfor their astronomic lore. It was, of course, more astrologicalthan purely scientific. We have a first hand account of this lorefrom the hand of an Egyptian high priest named Abammon ina work called the Book oj mysteries, appearing among the writingsof Iamblichus (edited at Oxford in 1678 by T. Gale). Porphyryhad addressed questions to an Egyptian priest, and it is prob-able that this work is no fiction by Iamblichus, but a genuinereply received from a high representative of the Egyptian priest-hood, glad to make common cause with the Neo-Platonistsagainst the advancing tide of Christianity. The reply may bedated about A.D. 300. Nemesius most probably had his know-ledge of the "doctrine of the Egyptian sages" from Neo-Platonic sources. Abammon believes, with the Neo-Platonists,that some men have a higher soul or "spark of divinity,"deriving from a world above the stars. In this letter, intendedas a reply to Porphyry, Abammon naturally adopts the Neo-Platonic view of the higher soul as being nous, or pure mind.The natural or lower soul, according to Abammon, is put intothe body at birth by the working of the stars, and is constitutedin accordance with the horoscope. The subsequent life corres-ponds with this pre-determination—hence the interest in castinghoroscopes, which was, no doubt, part of the craft of theEgyptian priesthood. But, Abammon continues, those who havethe divine spark have also the power to approach the higherdivinities as suppliants. These divinities, according to Abam-


mon, are the deities worshipped in the temples of Egypt, whomay, of course, be identified with deities worshipped underother names by the Greeks. The elect, or favoured race of menendowed with higher soul, can, by approved ways of prayer orsacrifice, win from the higher gods some modification of theirdestiny determined by the stars (who are lower gods), such, forexample, as the recovery from an illness that would have provedfatal. Abammon seems to present this modification of destinyin the light of a correction, or overruling for good, of thedestiny dependent on the stars, thus constituting a higherdestiny. Hence the force of the argument of Nemesius. Neme-sius clearly knows that the doctrine which he is refuting makesa division of mankind into two classes, of spiritual, and psychicor merely natural. Abammon seems to think of the higher soulas coming and inserting itself into the lower soul, perhaps atadolescence. Nemesius' conclusion is that all men have equallya measure of free-will, and that this disposes of the arbitrarydoctrine that the stars determine human destiny. When, in thenext section, he speaks of the opinion of "the wisest of theGreeks", it is not to contrast the Greeks with the Egyptians, somuch as to imply that the Neo-Platonists, who follow theEgyptians, are not the wisest of the Greeks.

[M.299. i-3<>3- 5]X X X V I I . Of those who say that the choice of actions lies with us, but

that the outcome of those actions is destined

TEXT

53. Those who say that the choice of actions lies with us, butthat the outcome of those actions is as it was destined—andthey are the wisest of the Greeks—have so far got the matterright, and yet so far are astray. For in attributing to us thechoice of what we do, but not altogether charging us with theoutcome, they speak most correctly. But when they invest fatewith the part of determining the outcome, they are wrong. Forthey will stand reproved, in the first place, for making destinysomething that is not self-complete, as only determining the onething but not the other; and in the second place, for makingfate a by-product of our purpose. For, upon that purpose ofours they make the operations of fate dance attendance, withthe consequence that destiny is found rather to be set in motionby us, than we by it. So, man is mightier than fate, in the sense


that he is shaping destiny by what he chooses to do. What weought to say is that providence shapes the outcome of ouractions, for this work belongs to providence rather than todestiny. For the role of providence is to allot to each what ismost suited to each. Consequently, the outcome of our choiceswill sometimes prove advantageous and sometimes not. Now iffate is, as the Stoics define it, some unbroken chain of causes andeffects, that is to say, some order and concatenation of eventsthat cannot be changed, then it reaches a conclusion that is notdetermined by its being profitable, but by some motive andnecessity characteristic of fate. But what must we say of personsthat are so silly and stupid as not to be capable of purpose? Didthey turn out like that because they were so destined, or didthey not ? For, if they were not so destined, then here are thingsthat fall outside the realm of destiny. But if they were sodestined, it follows inevitably that we have not free-will. For ifa person being incapable of purpose is the work of destiny, thenit follows inevitably that destiny decides who shall be capableof purpose. And so these folk are where they started, saying thatall things happen as they are fated. And that being so, the strifebetween reason and lust is an inanity, whether the struggleends in continence or the reverse. For if it was of necessitysettled that one man does the thing, and another does not, whatgood purpose is served by that upheaval and contention in theman? Yes, and furthermore it is equally fated, not only thatone should do the thing, but that one should do it thus. Whatelse, then, are folk saying, who make this assertion, but thateven purpose itself belongs to the class of fated things ? Well,then, it is free-will that battles with lust, and is victorious in thecontinent, and beaten in the incontinent. Therefore the formof the Stoics' original hypothesis will not stand, since it leadsthem to the conclusion that we have no free-will.

COMMENTARY

53. Exposure of the Stoic failure to establish moral freedom on alogical basis. Not fate, but only providence, leaves room forhuman free-will. Nemesius apparently dignifies the Stoics here,with the name of the "wisest of the Greeks" because they seethat human affairs are in some way over-ruled. Destiny was, intheir eyes, good. Chrysippus said that, if he knew that he wasdestined to be ill, he would try to be. Arbitrary choice of actionthey connected with ignorance, or doubt as to what was best.


Epictetus declared that he would choose sickness or death, if heknew that, as a member of God's universe, such was his appro-priate fate. It was a Stoic presupposition that when choice mustbe made, it must be made unswayed by passion. When thedestined course is known, the knowledge chooses for us."Fecklessness", which Nemesius ingeniously makes the fulcrumfor his refutation, was unconsidered in the Stoic scheme.Nemesius contends that fate, as such, is amoral, and not good.

[M.303. 6-307. 6]

X X X V I I I . Of the teaching of Plato on destiny

TEXT

54. Plato uses the word destiny in two senses, as meaning boththe concept of destiny and the working out of destiny. He con-ceives of destiny as being the world-soul. Its working out, hesays, in having an inescapable source, fulfils an invincibledivine law. This law he calls the rule of divine retribution, andsays that it was given by the first and highest God to the world-soul1 for the regulating of all things, and so that all things thathappen might do so in accordance with it. He calls this law,"destiny working itself out", and "the rule of providence". Fordestiny is, he says, contained within providence, since every-thing fated is providential also. But the converse does not hold,that everything providential is fated. The divine law itself,which he says is at once both providence and fate, is all-embracing, affecting some things directly, and others indirectly.For it embraces directly, as being, as it were, the start for allelse, each and every first cause. Such direct objects of that law

1 Providence, in the Timaens, elevated to the primacy of the gods, ispictured as being faced, at the beginning, with matter in a state of con-fused and disorderly motion, or chaos. This chaos the Creator turned intoorder, by bringing into it the world-soul, which is the final cause of allthat goes on in the universe. The world-soul constantly seeks the best thatmay be. It is Nemesius or his source, rather than Plato, that equates theworld-soul with destiny. The divine law which Plato saw as being workedout through the world-soul is nearer to what Nemesius thinks of asprovidence, than to fate. It is invincible only in the sense that life andreason are invincible. Necessity (anagke) takes the place in Plato morenearly of what Nemesius means by fate. Anagke stubbornly asserts itself,in disregard of moral considerations, and is negatively victorious againstthe divine law of goodness, order, and reason, at least to some extent. Incontrast, "divine retribution," adrasteia, while inescapable, is in moralcorrespondence with what men do.


are our proper assents, judgements, and impulses.2 Whatevernecessarily results from these is its indirect object, whereas ourown free choice of what to do is its direct object. When we havedone our part, the part of destiny follows on from what we havedone, as indirect consequence. For example, we choose to go tosea. Here the law operates directly, but when once we are atsea, contingencies follow thereon, it may be shipwreck or not.Therefore Plato calls "contingent" those things that resultfrom, and follow upon, our proper designs, that is to say, fromand upon the things we originate and do. So, then, firstcauses, and our part in events, are matter for providence, whilethe consequences that follow inevitably and are not our doing,are fated.3 For Plato says that what is destined was not deter-mined from all eternity, but is contingent on our initiatives.4

This agrees with the proverb, "the fault lies with our choice,and God is blameless", or "virtue knows no master", and withthe fact of prediction.5 For the entire argument to be drawntherefrom is to the end that choices, and some of the actionsthat result from them, lie within our power, while after-results,and how it all ends, are the province of fate and of necessity.It has been proved by what we have said above, that while this

2 The souls of men, corresponding with the world-soul, are the children andchoice creatures of providence, whose timeless design comes to fruition bytheir moral initiative. They are these first causes which are the directobject of the divine law.

3 The world-soul, according to Plato, prevails upon matter, to improve it,as much as is possible. What opposes the world-soul in this task is theamoral causality, the anomalous and incomprehensible element of brutalnecessity which arises in the world from matter. Providence, in Plato'sbelief, is largely triumphant by intelligent handling of this refractorinessof the material basis of the world. The mechanical consequences of actsare contingently providential, i.e., contingent relatively to providence.But it remains that when reason and mind have exercised all theirinitiative, the chain of cause and effect remains estranged from moralvalues. Nemesius superimposes a divine law upon Plato's providence andfate, to bind them together. This is not true to Plato, who saw the goodpurposes of the Creator at times suffering defeat, by the resistance ofnecessity; and that is something in which Nemesius will not follow him.

4 As Plato saw it, inevitability was the attribute of anagke (necessity), andnot of the fulfilment by men of "what is destined" (the final purposes ofprovidence). It was, in particular, amoral necessity that made menwicked; since no man wishes to be wicked, but is so only by bad rearing,bad health, or pressure of some kind from the material world.

s The first "proverb" is actually a citation from Plato's Republic, near theend of Bk. x. Prediction rests on superhuman knowledge. In the Republic,Plato directs consultation of the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, saying that"there is no other authority equally trustworthy."


exposition of Plato, wherein he gives the disposition and will ofGod the name of fate, and then subjects fate to providence, isinept, it diverges but a little from Holy Writ, which teachesthat providence alone rules over all. Yet there is a seriousdifference, when he says that it is from necessity that the finalconsequences follow upon what we choose to do. For ourassertion is that the dispositions of providence do not followmechanically, but within a range of possibilities.6 If providencecould only follow mechanically, a first result would be that thegreater part of prayer would be laid waste. For Plato's argu-ment leaves prayer to affect only the beginnings of our actions,so that we may make the best choice what to do. But when oncethat choice has been made, further prayer is vain, since whatfollows is by mere necessity. But, as we draw the distinction, thepower of prayer relates specially to what shall follow upon ourchoice. For we say that it lies with providence whether or notfolk at sea are wrecked, and that, whichever in fact it is, is notthe work of mere necessity, but is God's choice within a rangeof possibilities.

COMMENTARY

54. A criticism of Plato. In spite of the chapter-heading, only thefirst half of ch. xxxvm is concerned with Plato. In this half,Plato's doctrine is not stated in terms taken at first hand fromPlato. Nemesius' most probable source of information is somecommentary on the Timaeus.

[M.307. 6-311. 6]TEXT

55. For it is blasphemous to say that God is subject to necessity,or that his will is bound by it. For necessity itself is his creation.1

For, in the first place, he imposed necessity upon the stars,2

<s The Christian concept of providence rejects the Platonic dualism ofmatter and mind, as each being sovereign powers. In the Christian con-cept, God grasps the whole chain of causality, including that whichextends beyond the reach of our initiative. God can introduce new factorsinto these further chains. Therefore a Christian can pray, not only, asPlato would, for guidance whether to put to sea, but, in putting to sea, forsalvation from shipwreck. But man's prayer is useless, where God cannotmaster necessity.

1 Nemesius thus passes from Plato, with the justest criticism that can bemade from the Christian side. The Greek doctrine ofAnagke is irreconcil-able with Christian faith and hope.

2 By this sentence Nemesius turns necessity into the principle of order,whereas, as used by Plato, it was the negation of order.


making them move in the same way for ever and ever. Then heset also the bounds of the sea. And he further imposed uponuniversal Nature, and on particular kinds, the limits they mustobserve. If any like to call those limits the domain of fate,because such things happen inevitably, altogether and in everyrespect according to that rule (for example, that everythingthat, in its turn, comes into being, inevitably also perishes), wehave nothing to say against it. For our dispute with them is notabout terms. What we say is that God not only stands outsidethe power of all necessity; he is its Lord and Maker. For in thathe is authority, and the very source whence authority flows, hehimself does nothing through any necessity of nature, or at thebidding of any inviolable law. On the contrary, all things arepossible to him, including those we call impossible. To provethis, he established once for all the courses of the sun and moon,which are borne on their way by inevitable laws, and for everand ever will be thus borne, and at the same time to prove thatnothing is to him inevitable, but that all things are possiblethat he may choose, just once he made a special "day" thatScripture sets forth as a "sign",3 solely that he might the moreproclaim, and in nowise invalidate, that divine ordinance withwhich, from the beginning, he fixed the undeviating orbits ofthe stars. In like manner, he made unending the lives of certainmen, Elias and Enoch, to wit,4 in spite of their being mortaland liable to corruption, so that, by all these signs, we mightrecognize his authority, and know that his purposes areunconstrained.

The Stoics, on the other hand, assert5 that when the planetshave wheeled about until they reach, once more, the same signof the Zodiac, and the same height and position in it, whicheach of them had at the beginning, when the world was firstmade, at the stated periods of time, a burning up and destruc-tion of all things is brought about. Then the world is recon-stituted exactly as it was before, and the stars likewise gothrough their motions all over again. Each single thing, theysay, happens in the same undeviating order as in the previous

3 Josh, io: 13, 14.4 II Kings 2:11. (Elias) Gen. 5:24 interpreted by Heb. 11:5 (Enoch).5 This hostile account of the Stoic doctrine of the conflagration (ekpurosis)

at the end of the world-age is so remarkably like that in Origen, AgainstCelsus, iv, 67, 68, and v, 21, 22, that we must assume that either Nemesiusknew this work, or that the account in Origen came to be a common-place of Christian polemics.


world-cycle, and takes its course without a single change. Forthey will even have it that Socrates and Plato, and with themevery single man of their time, whether of their friends or ofthe Athenian citizens, will live again, hold each their sameopinions, meet with the same situations, and undertake thesame courses of action, while every city, village, and division ofthe countryside, will likewise be repeated. Moreover they saythat this rebirth of the world will take place not once but manytimes, or, rather, endlessly, and the same things will be re-peated again for ever and ever. The gods, they then aver, notbeing subject to this periodic destruction, saw one world-cyclethrough, and, for that reason, know everything that is going tohappen in each succeeding world-cycle in turn. For nothingwill happen out of course that has not happened before, but allthings will be just the same and unaltered, down to the lastdetail. Now some folk are saying that Christians made up theirdoctrine of a resurrection out of this doctrine of cosmic rebirth,but they are wide of the mark. For the oracles of Christ pre-suppose that the resurrection events will be once for all, andnot repeated at intervals.6

COMMENTARY

55. The Christian grounds for rejecting determinism. God is abovedestiny; and the Stoics are ridiculous in their doctrine of cosmicrebirths. Such are the arguments of the two halves of thisSection. Nemesius begins by a round statement of the theolo-gical answer of Christianity to determinism of every kind, that

6 Nemesius is apparently dealing with a slightly different anti-Christianline of attack from that which Origen met from Celsus. Celsus assumesthat the Christian teaching of the coming end of the world is a mereperversion of the doctrine of the ekpurosis, wherein the Christians saythat, when all the rest of creation is destroyed, they will survive. Origentakes no notice of the suggestion that Christians are plagiarists. He gives hiswhole attention to showing that the Christian hope of bodily resurrectionis not the crudity which Celsus thus makes it. And he ignores the factthat the Stoic doctrine is of world-cycles that go on endlessly, where theChristian doctrine of the end of the world is of an ending once for all. Itwould seem, therefore, that Nemesius had to meet a more recent develop-ment of anti-Christian polemic, the sting of which lay in the charge ofplagiarism. Nemesius admits that Christians believe that the world will,at the end of the age, be restored to its pristine and paradisiacal state.But the restored world will not run the same course again, but an eternaland quite different course. The Christian doctrine of the finite presentworld-age is so essentially original that it cannot, he argues, have beenplagiarized from the Stoic doctrine.


it is essentially blasphemous in its refusal to let God be God.The classical Greek concept of anagke, which prevailed evenwith Plato, implied a despair of the supremacy of good whichconstituted the most excusable form of such blasphemy.Christians choose the alternative of seeing, in anagke, God's willtranscending mutability and our comprehension, and they doso, Nemesius says, because they have had the benefit of truthrevealed in Scripture; in short, because they believe in miracle.So Nemesius concludes his case against determinism, in thefirst half of the section, while the second half forms an appendixin which he rebuts the charge, which we know to have beencurrent, that Christian notions of resurrection were derivedfrom pagan sources.

[M.311. 7-316. 11]

X X X I X . Of free-will, or the power of initiative

TEXT

56. In debating free-will, or in other words our power toinitiate, the first point to establish is that we possess any suchpower. For there are many that hold the contrary opinion. Thatsettled, there is the second point, namely, what things they arethat lie within our power, and what is the extent of ourauthority. A third thing is to seek earnestly the reason why God,in making us, endowed us with free-will. To begin with thefirst point, let us first assert that we have free-will, and thenprove it from facts which even our opponents will concede. Forthey say that the cause of anything that happens is either God,or necessity, or fate, or Nature, or fortune, or accident.1

Now, whatever God does is creative and providential. Whatsprings from necessity is a motion from cause to effect thatfollows ever the same course. The working out of destiny is suchthat all things inevitably reach their destined end (it is indeedidentical with that of necessity). The things that Nature worksare birth, growth, and decay, and plants and animals. Thetricks of fortune are singular and unexpected happenings. Forfortune is defined as the coincidence and concurrence of twoactions each of which arises from some particular purpose, to

* Basil and Theodoret are with Nemesius in asserting that neither God,Nature, fortune, nor accident, are to be blamed for the things which mendo. Accident (to automaton) differs from fortune in being devoid of humaninterest.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 4H

produce something quite different from what was intended byeither,2 as when a man digs a ditch and finds a buried treasure.For one man buried the treasure, but not that the other manmight find it. Nor did the other man dig for the purpose offinding treasure. The first intended, in his own time, to dig thetreasure up again, while the second intended to dig a ditch.What fell out was something different from what either hadintended. Finally, the fruits of accident are such things as befallinanimate and irrational things, devoid of nature or of art.3 Towhich of these, therefore, shall we attribute those things thathappen by human agency ? (if, that is, we are not to admit thatman himself is the cause and origin of his deeds).

It would be rank blasphemy to ascribe any man's shamefuland wicked deeds to God. We cannot ascribe man's deeds tonecessity, since they do not follow an invariable pattern. Wecannot ascribe them to fate, because fate admits no range ofpossibilities, but only permits of one inevitable destiny;4 nor toNature, artificer of plants and animals; nor to fortune, sincethe deeds of men are not all singular or unexpected; nor toaccident, for accident is the sort of thing that befalls inanimateand irrational things. Surely, there only remains the possibilitythat man himself, who both does things and makes things, isthe initiator of his own works, and possessor of free-will.

A further consideration is this; if a man is the initiator ofnone of his deeds, it is in vain that he deliberates. For what useis taking counsel, if one is master of no single deed ? Moreover,it would be a most monstrous thing that the fairest and mosthonourable attribute of man should turn out to be of no avail.For taking of counsel is with a view to doing something, and theundertaking and doing of something is the occasion for alltaking of counsel. And still a further point is this; whateverpowers of action we may have, the corresponding particularactions that employ those powers are ours as well. As we possesscapabilities needed for various virtues, so surely those virtuesthemselves are ours to attain. And that those capabilities thatcan attain to virtue are ours is shown in that excellent saying of

2 This definition of fortune is from Aristotle, Physics, 11, 4, 5, 6.3 A dislodged stone rolls under the force of gravity. An animal takes shelter

from heat or cold without reasoning why. Human conduct, Nemesiusmeans, cannot be brought wholly within such a range of explanation.Rational creatures, as well as inanimate things, are, as Aristotle said,liable to accident.

* That open possibility combined with fate is an illusion has been proved inchs. XXXV-XXXVH.


Aristotle about the ethical virtues, that "What things we learnby doing them, we also do from having learned them".5 For, bylearning to master pleasures we become temperate, and beingtemperate, we are masters of our love of pleasure. Or we mayput it in another way, and say that anyone will admit that wehave the power to rehearse and practise anything. Now rehear-sal makes a thing habitual, and habit is second nature. So, ifrehearsal is formative of habit, and lies within our initiative,then the attaining of a habit also is within our reach. And ifcertain habits are within our power, then the correspondingactions, springing from those habits, are in our power also. Fordeeds proceed from habits. For, surely, it is the habituallyupright man that does the righteous deeds, and the wicked manlikewise that does the wicked deeds. And surely, too, it lies withus to be just men or wicked, as we will.6

Now all our giving of advice and exhortation likewise demon-strates that there are things that lie within our power. For noone on earth would advise a person not to be hungry or thirsty,or not to take wings and fly, since it is not within our power toprofit by such advice. It is plain therefore, that things that wecan be advised to do, are things that lie within our power. Onefurther and final consideration; laws would be inane if nothingwhatever lies within our power. And yet, taught purely byNature, every race of men observes some laws, which it laysdown as knowing itself capable of acting in accordance withthem. And the majority of peoples name gods as their lawgivers.For example, Cretans ascribe their laws to Zeus,7 and Spartansascribe theirs to Apollo. Surely, then, a knowledge of what iswithin our power must be naturally distributed throughoutmankind. And we must add that conclusions identical with theforegoing are to be drawn from the existence of blame andpraise,8 while all such arguments disprove the thesis that every-thing is ruled by fate.

5 This is the doctrine of the Nicomachean Ethics, the saying being cited,loosely, from n. i. Aristotle's exact phrase is that "things we have tolearn to do, we learn to do in the doing of them."

6 For the parallels in Aristotle on habit, see Domanski, op. ciL, footnotesto pp. 158-9, as also parallels in Origen.

7 Minos, the son of Zeus, whom Ovid calls legifer, was said to have giventhe Cretans laws in his father's name. The Spartan lawgiver, Lycurgus,sought confirmation of his laws from the oracle of Apollo at Delphi.

8 The argument for free-will based on the consideration of praise and blameprevailed especially in Christian circles, and appears there first in Origen,On first principles, I . 5. 2.

OF THE NATURE OF MAN 4 1 3

COMMENTARY

56. Human free-will demonstrated. In this and the next threechapters Nemesius is concerned with the doctrine of free-will.He begins this chapter by enumerating the three themes to bedealt with, of which the first, that human free-will is no illusion,occupies the rest of the chapter. His ultimate source is theethics of Aristotle, as may be seen from Domanski's footnotes,op. cit.y pp. 151-4. Aristotle knew, however, nothing of theconditioned nature of human freedom. Nemesius, for his part,fails to discover the psychological conditions binding our exer-cise of freedom; prejudice, limitation of view, and so on. But headvances far enough upon Aristotle for this not to make anyserious difference, except that it is difficult to clear him from asuspicion of Pelagianism. In this he stands close to Theodore ofMopsuestia. The word autexousia for free-will, which he uses,does not belong to the vocabulary of Aristotle. The probablesource of Nemesius, at this point, is therefore not Aristotlehimself, but some later commentary on Aristotle's ethics.Domanski thinks it could be the famous commentary byAlexander of Aphrodisias. H. A. Koch is, however, inclined tothink that it was a commentary of Syrian and Christian origin.The overt Aristotelianism of the Neo-Arian leaders, Aetius andEunomius, would suggest the Christian circulation of suchliterature.

[M.317. 1-323. 14]XL. Of the range of things concerning which we have free-will

TEXT

57. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that there are certainthings that lie within our power, and that we are the masters ofat least some of our actions. Now let us state what the things arethat lie within our power. We say then, in general, that any-thing we do willingly is a thing that lies within our power. Forno deed that does not lie within human power would be saidto be done willingly.1 The things in our power are, in a word,those that bring us blame or praise, or are the subject ofadvice, or the object of legislation; for so much has been provedalready. In a special degree, everything that has to do with thesoul lies within our power, together with things concerning

1 If I say "I would willingly make myself invisible" I imply that, as thingsare, the word "willingly" is not applicable to making myself invisible.


which we take counsel. We take counsel about some proposeddeed, as having in our power the doing or not doing of it. Andfurther it has been shown (earlier in this work) how counsel istaken in respect of things of even possibility, a possibility beingeven when we can do either a certain thing or its diametricopposite.2 Our mind makes the choice which it is to be, andthis choice initiates action. These even possibilities are thethings that lie in our power, such as, whether to move or staystill, whether to hasten or not, whether or not to grasp at thingsnot indispensable, whether to lie or tell the truth, give or with-hold, rejoice over some good that comes to us or take it forgranted, or as many such things as there are, where vice orvirtue may enter. For, in respect of these things, we have free-will.

Among actions of even possibility are the arts.3 For every artis concerned with creating something that can either be or notbe, of which the initiation lies with the artist, but not with thething that may be made. For nothing that is without beginning,or that must exist, or that is bound to happen is attributed toan art; neither is anything attributed to art, though having thepossibility of being otherwise than it is, if it contains withinitself the cause of its own being, as is the case with animals andplants. For they are the work of Nature and not of art. If, then,things attributable to art have their efficient cause external tothemselves, who is the cause of a work of art but the artisthimself, who makes it ? For since the making of the work of artlies with the artist, he is surely the origin and cause of what ismade. To be sure, therefore, there lie in our power both themaking of works of art, the virtues, and all activities of soul andmind. And what the faculties of the soul are has been shownalready.4

2 The subject of "even possibilities" is treated in the second book of thecommentary on Aristotle, On interpretation, composed by Ammonius, theson of Hermeas, a late member of the Neo-Platonic succession at Alex-andria, who died in A.D. 484. In this book he discusses providence, divineforeknowledge, and free-will, and opposes the attribution of power tofate. We may suppose him to be reproducing lines that the earlier Neo-Platonists had pioneered, and may conjecture that Nemesius, in thissection, was much influenced by a Neo-Platonist commentary on somework of Aristotle.

3 In Section 50 it was said that most arts are not subjects for deliberation.But that kind of deliberation concerned the "how." In this passage itonly concerns the "whether."

* The faculties of the soul have been the subject of investigation from ch. vion, and have been shown to work at different levels, rational and ir-


The man in the street supposes that the doctrine of humanfree-will means that everything a man does, together with hisgifts and attainments, and even the fortune he enjoys is thefruit of his own choice, and naturally rejects such a notion. Butmen of sharper wit actually refute us by adducing a citationfrom Scripture that, "A man's ways are not in his own power".5

"Good people5*, they say, "how can man have free-will, seeingthat his way is not in his own hands" ? They cite again, "Thethoughts of men's hearts are vain",6 so that we cannot bring tofruition the thoughts that we conceive. Many such things theysay, not knowing what really is meant by free-will. For, ofcourse, we have not the choice whether to be either rich or poor,or to be always well, or to enjoy rude health, or to commandeither what men call a competency, or a fortune, or aught elsethat is ruled by providence. But we have the power to do,determine or promote either good or evil, in all those caseswhere there is before us an even balance of possibilities; seeingthat an act of choice leads the way to every deed, and that notthe deed only but the choice itself is subject to judgement. Thisis proved by what it says in the Gospel, "Everyone that lookethon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with heralready in his heart".7 Also Job sacrificed to God for the tres-passes which his children committed in thought.8 For thebeginning of sin and of good works alike is in an act of choice.As for the actual deed, providence sometimes permits it, andsometimes prevents it. So there is the part that we can play, andthe part of providence. What happens must necessarily dependon both together. For if anything were the work of one only,that excludes the other. The way things happen, then, is by anintermingling of agency; now it will be by our initiation, and

rational. But we can hardly suppose that the "activities" (praxeis) of thesoul, here mentioned for the first time can be anything other than theconscious rational thoughts and impulses.

s The citation is of Jer. 10:23, DUt k tendentiously inexact. The words ofJeremiah are, "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; itis not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord correct me, butwith judgement..." The prophet admits the frailty of man, but certainlynot his moral irresponsibility.

* "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men that they are but vain." Ps. 93(94): 11. It appears, from this "refutation," that there was, in Syria, anon-Christian public acquainted at least with the Septuagint, but un-reconciled to the Christian view of sin. The Syrian "man in the street"would appear to have been frankly fatalistic.

7 Matt. 5:28.Jb 1:5.


now by decree of providence, and now, again, it will accordwith both at once.

Now providence is in some sense universal, and in some senseis concerned with particular things and persons. It follows ofnecessity that the particular providence must accord withuniversal providence. Thus, if the atmosphere is dry, everybodyis also dry, although all may not be equally so.9 And when themother does not eat suitably, but gives herself up to gluttony,the consequence is that her children are born with their physicaltemperament disordered and their inclinations perverse. It isplain, then, from these considerations, that it may fall to thelot of some persons to have a difficult temperament, eitherthrough sharing the general circumstances of their parents,10 orfrom the way their parents chose to feed, or because they them-selves have ruined their bodies by gluttony, so that theirphysical temperaments turned out to be bad, ultimatelybecause of human voluntary action; and providence is notwholly accountable for such situations.

When soul, therefore, yields to physical temperament, and

9 This example gains force and clarity if we take it of the drought in thedays of Ahab (I Kings 17, 18). This is represented in Scripture as a workof providence, for the correction of Israel. The general conditions affectthe righteous Obadiah no less than the guilty Ahab, though it may benot so grievously, while a special providence is seen to preserve Elijah,who is also an example of free-will. "Elijah was a man of like passionswith us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained noton the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and theheaven gave rain" (James 5:17, 18). In this passage, providence almostseems to wait upon a human initiative. The single sentence of Nemesiusunder comment is, by itself, so obscure that it is probable that he is sum-marizing an argument known in some other way. It might only mean"the physique of the nomad Arabs is different from ours, but not in everyindividual."

10 This is perhaps the sense, but there is strong probability that the text iscorrupt at this point.

"Visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children" (Ex. 20:5) may wellbe cited as an exemplary work of providence. But the example taken byNemesius bases the operation of this law rather on necessity than onprovidence, excusing providence because it is the hand of nemesis thatis seen in the unhappy plight of the disordered. We have here, fromNemesius' own pen, the Platonic dualism of providence and necessity.This seems to show how hard it was for Greek men of learning to get freefrom the influence of Platonic notions, even when, they wanted to. Italso strengthens the probability that, at this stage in his argument,Nemesius was using a Neo-Platonic source, in some way. He gets backon to safe ground in saying that anyone has, within his capacities, differentways in which he can behave.


gives way to lust or anger, and is weighed down by poverty orpuffed up by wealth, according as fortune apportions them, theevil so constituted is voluntary. For a soul that does not yieldto faulty temperament, but corrects and overcomes it, changingit rather than being changed by it, succeeds in establishing foritself wholesome dispositions, by gentle training and a helpfuldiet. So, from considering those that go about things in theright way, it can be seen that those who do not, sin voluntarily.For it lies with us whether we concur with our faults of tempera-ment, or work against them and master them. And when theman in the street puts up the excuse that his faulty tempera-ment is the cause of his passions, he does not attribute vice toman's choice but to necessity, and caps that by alleging that theacquisition of the virtues does not lie with us either; an assertionwhich is monstrous!

COMMENTARY

57. The inter-relation of human free-will and divine providence. Thissection opens by summarizing the results that have beenreached regarding the nature and extent of human initiative.The analysis of the nature of an art, which then follows, islikely to be derived from a rhetorical or philosophical com-mentary. It is to Nemesius' purpose, in providing, in theartist, a prime example of human initiative. Finally it is shownthat the real problem of free-will is how to relate it to theworking of divine providence.

[M.324. 1-328. 1]

X L I . Why we were given free-will

TEXT

58. It remains to say why we were given free-will. Straightway,then, we assert that free-will came to us as the necessary con-comitant of the faculty of reason.1 Next we say that transforma-tion and change belong to creaturehood, and especially tocreatures made with a substrate of matter. For the start of beingis change, while becoming involves change in the materialsubstrate. The truth of this statement can be seen by looking

1 Domanski, op. cit., p. 161, Note 1, gives parallels from Alexander ofAphrodisias and from Origen; in this insistence upon the crowning gloryof man, the double gift of reason and free-will, we see the Aristotelianpsychology being influenced by a Neo-Platonic moment.27—c.j.


at any plant, or at animals, whether they tread the earth, orfly, or swim. For change is incessant in them all. Furthermore,that free-will comes to us in company with the faculty ofreason is quite clear to any that give good heed, from what hasbeen said concerning the fact that there are things that are inour power. Nevertheless, it will not be out of place to recallthese points at this stage, seeing that the argument whichfollows calls for it.

Of the rational faculty, part is devoted to contemplation andpart to action. Contemplation is perceiving things, and howthey consist. Reason on the active side is deliberative, anddetermines the right way to do things. The contemplativeexercise of the faculty is commonly referred to as mind, whilethe active exercise is called reasoning; or the first is calledwisdom and the second prudence. Everyone who deliberatesdoes so on the supposition that the choice of things to be donelies with him, and that he will choose the preferable course asthe result of his taking of counsel; further, that when he has sochosen, he will act upon his choice. There is every necessity,therefore, for one who has the capacity for deliberation also tobe master of his own actions, for, if it were otherwise, it wouldbe to no profit that he possessed the faculty of deliberation. Andif things stand so, then free-will is bound to accompany thefaculty of reason. For either a creature will not be endowedwith reason, or, if it is endowed with reason, then it will also bemaster of what it does. And if a creature is master of what itdoes, without doubt it must possess free-will.

Now it has been shown that creatures made with a substrateof matter are mutable. Put together our last two arguments,and we get of necessity the result that man has free-will and ismutable. He is mutable because he is a creature.2 He has free-2 As at the end of ch. i, Nemesius here connects moral instability and phys-

ical instability as it exists in creatures living by means of material bodies.He goes on to attribute moral mutability even to incorporeal creatures.It appears, therefore, that it is inseparable in thought from creaturehood,as such, and not first and foremost to the instability of the body. A beingmorally immutable by nature would not be a creature, but a second God.To rational creaturehood, God adds the gift of ability to contemplatehimself, and in varying degrees in different kinds of rational creature.But in them all, such contemplation generates moral immutability. Thefaculty of reason contains the possibility of the contemplation of God,but also that of preoccupation with and preference of creatures. Moralmutability is not identical with free-will, but free-will is the conditionwithout which moral mutability, or, for that matter, moral immutability,would be inconceivable. The mingling of the two kinds of mutability in


will because he is endowed with reason. Anyone, therefore, thatfinds fault with God for not making man incapable of evil, whileat the same time being endowed with free-will, is, though hemay not know it, blaming God for making man rational, andnot irrational. It has to be in one way or the other. Either manmust be irrational, or, if he is rational, then liable to act now inone way and now in another, and so he must have free-will.Inevitably, therefore, every nature endowed with reason mustalso have free-will, and, as part of that same nature, be mutable.But creatures made with a substrate of matter are mutable ontwo accounts, first from being material, and then as beingcreatures. Such creatures as are not made with a substrate ofmatter are mutable on the one single account of creaturehood.And again, all such incorporeal natures as are concerned inmundane affairs, and descend to taking a share with men intheir deeds, are mutable above all other beings of their kind. Onthe other hand, those whose incorporeal nature is so high as tobe relatively near to God, enjoy blessedness in contemplatinghim. They are concerned only with their personal relation toGod, and have weaned themselves completely from everythingto do with passing activity and with matter. So they havebecome more and more habituated to contemplation and toGod, and rest immutable. While, because they are rational,they have free-will, they are, for the reason given, in no wisemutable. Nor need we marvel. For those from among men whohave given themselves to contemplation, and have severedthemselves from affairs, have continued unchanging.3

I think, now, that in what has gone before it has been fullydemonstrated that all creatures rational by nature were, fromthe first, most excellently made, and had they remained thus inaccordance with their first creation, they would have beenremoved from all evil. Evil came to them by their own choosing.

man makes his preference of creatures before God more tentative thanit would be in an incorporeal being, so that it is a subject for repentanceand forgiveness (so Section 7).

3 Cf. Athanasius, Life of St. Antony, 14, where the saint, after twenty yearsin the mountain, "had himself completely under control—a man guidedby reason, who had attained stability." The rationale of this hermit lifeis before us in Nemesius. Reason sees that, of its two capacities, thepractical confines to the sensible world, while the contemplative is freeof the noetic world as well, and so is the higher. Contemplation of Godfascinates the creature that attains to it, and stills him into an immut-ability of goodness that mirrors the immutability of God. This deliverancefrom mutability is the creature's salvation. Such was the gospel of theDesert Fathers.


Accordingly, those that have remained as they were made at thefirst enjoy blessedness.

Of the incorporeal beings, only angels fell away, and not allof them, but some only, that inclined to things below, and settheir desire on things of earth, withdrawing themselves fromtheir relations with things above, yea and with God.4

COMMENTARY

58. The mutability of creatures. The promise of the title of thechapter remains unfulfilled otherwise than in the first sentence.No doubt, the implication of this first section is that the use offree-will, for which it was bestowed by God, was that rationalcreatures, despite their creaturehood, should come, throughcontinual exercise of right choice, and contemplation of Godhimself, to share the divine immutability. This conclusion isnever made explicit. The explicit subject of this section ismutability as an attribute of creatures.

[M.328. n -331 . 2]TEXT

59. It is clear, then, from what we have shown, that as we aremutable on account of our nature, we have faculties of choice1

4 In this passage, Nemesius seems to identify angels with the "sons of God"in Gen. 6:2—4. ^ s word "only" seems to exclude archangels from thefall of these angels. Such a view would go with the supposition that theserpent of Gen. 3:1 was an animal, and not a fallen archangel appearingas a serpent. Nemesius seems to have somewhat different speculations inview in the two passages, in Sections 7 and 58 respectively.

* "Faculty" throughout this section translates dynamis (power). But tosubstitute the word power in translation would be to obscure the factthat the reference is still to the Posidonian notion that for every activitythat belongs to the life of man the Creator has given him the appropriatedynamis, or faculty wherewith he can fulfil that aspect of his being.Nemesius has been at pains to show how choices are made. But theassumption has been tacitly made that there is a dynamis proairetike orwill-power present, to implement the choice. This faculty has been calledmutable because there is nothing in it qua faculty that determines that itshall be used for good and not for evil. Nemesius will not allow, however,that, qua faculty, it is evil or the cause of evil, any more than are any ofthe natural dynameis or faculties.The mutability shows itself in the exercise of will, but it originates in thespiritual nature of man as a rational creature. Augustine would presum-ably have agreed with Nemesius that in itself the power to will is the giftof God in nature, and good; but he would have denied that bad upbring-ing or the acquisition of bad habit were sufficient explanation of the trend


that are mutable. But no one should blame God because we,having mutable faculties, are evil. For the badness is not in thefaculties, but in our habits, and our habits are as we choose;and surely it is by our choice that we become evil. We are notso by nature. My meaning may be more exactly stated asfollows. We said, above, that a faculty is that whereby we areable to do each several thing that we do. Every faculty that isconcerned with the exercise of free choice serves for whicheveralternative is chosen. For the same faculty enables us to lie orto tell the truth, just as one and the same faculty serves us toexercise moderation or to be wanton. But it is not one habitthat enables us to follow opposite courses, such as wantonnessand moderation, or lying and telling the truth. On the con-trary, opposite habits lead to contrasted courses of action. Formoderation springs from virtuous habit, and wantonness fromvicious habit. Certain it is that evils do not come from thefaculties, but arise from habits and from free-will. For it is notthe faculty in question that prepares us to play the wanton, orto lie, but our free choice. For it lay in our power to tell thetruth and not lie. Seeing then that vice is not faculty but habit,it is not he who bestowed upon us the faculty that is answerablefor our evil deeds, but our habit that we have acquired, workingthrough us, and at our bidding. For it was open to us to acquire,by exercise, the opposite habit, and not the bad one. Andfaculty differs from habit, in the fact that all faculties arenatural, while all habits are acquired; as in the fact thatfaculties play their part untaught, while habits are acquired bylearning, and by use. If, then, a faculty has the qualities ofbeing natural and untaught, and a habit those of being ac-quired and learned, it follows that not nature but our badupbringing, whence we acquired bad habit, is to blame forevils.2 For all habit has been shown to be acquired. And that

towards evil that manifests itself in even the best nurtured and mostinnocent of mankind. Nemesius has not followed the matter so far back,but there is nothing to suggest that, if he had, he would have opposedAugustine. His object is clearly the justifying of God and not of man.

2 Bishop Fell's seventeen illustrations of the agreement of the language ofother Fathers with that of Nemesius are reprinted by Matthaei (pp. 399-400). Domanski {op. cit., p. 161, Note 1), after saying that the argumentof Nemesius lies entirely within the frame of nature, and is in collisionwith no doctrine either of supernatural grace or of divine wrath, pointsout the piquant truth that Bellarmine, while attacking Nemesius forPelagianism, defends Gregory of Nyssa from a like charge, whereas thework, On the soul, printed currently among the works of Nyssen wasnothing else than the first three chapters of Nemesius. And the words,


the faculties are, on the other hand, implanted by nature, isclear from the fact that all, excepting those suffering from somedisability, have the same faculties. And that habits are not thework of nature is evident from our not all having the samehabits, but some having one and some another; whereasnatural attributes are the same in every individual.3

COMMENTARY

59. We, and nothing of God's doing, are to blame for the ill we do.The purpose of this section is to close the survey of man's free-will with a firm denial that the evil in man's life is due to anyimperfection in God's gifts to man in his nature. So, havingvindicated the goodness of God in nature, Nemesius is about topass on to vindicate him in the matter of his providence. It is inthis section, however, that Nemesius gives most handle to thosewho would suspect him of Pelagianism. It does not suffice toconvict him. The Augustinian doctrine of an inherited pre-disposition to evil was not one that would come readily fromthe pen of any fourth century Greek churchman, because it wastoo reminiscent of the Gnostic doctrine that the body is thesource of evil. Alternatively, if the entry of evil into human lifewas not due to the body, the fact of such evil must prove somepre-natal fall of the soul to have taken place, thus opening thedoor to Origenism. It is notorious that Augustine was neverable to reach an assured view of the origin of the soul that wouldescape this dilemma. Nemesius, writing a decade before theAugustinian-Pelagian question had become a public issue, evenin the west, was unconscious that there was any danger toavoid. He was chiefly anxious to claim that no blame attachesto God for our evil lives, but that we ourselves introduce evil,

"the free actions of men are not the work of providence, but proceedfrom the reasoning and counsels of men," with which Bellarmine epitom-izes the justifiable teaching of Gregory, would apply admirably to whatNemesius has been saying in these last sections.

3 Nemesius insists, as Pelagius did, upon the impartiality of God's gifts innature. But Pelagius held it derogatory that God should be thought torequire to assist man's will in a mysterious manner before man could bepleasing to him, and fit for eternal life. Nemesius, on the other hand, soemphasizes the differences of human attainment that some theologicalexplanation is called for, over and above the attribution of evil to man'schoice. Nemesius undertakes no such explanation. But as the Christiandoctrines of election and grace are comprehensible only in the light ofChristian faith and experience, we could not expect them to be discussedor disclosed in Nemesius' work of apologetic.


in the making of our free choices. The other side of the question,whether being such as we are, we could choose right, is notwithin his purview. He is writing as an apologist. His non-Christian reader, used to aretologies, would suppose man to betheoretically capable of virtue. And that would be the bestthing for him to think, for only so would there be the openingto win him over to a serious acceptance of his own moralresponsibility. In short, the issue upon which Pelagianism turnsis something that lies outside the frame of Nemesius5 argument.

[M.331. 3-336. 8]

XLII . Of providence

TEXT

60. Sufficient has been said already to show that man has free-will, to indicate in what respects his will is free, and to say whyhe was given free-will. But since not everyone who has it inmind to murder someone actually does so (in some cases ithappens, but in others not, because the intention is thwartedand never attains its goal) we declared that providence (notfate) is in some sense answerable for what actually happens. Adiscussion of providence is the natural sequel to what has beensaid about human free-will. The argument may be taken inthree stages. First let us treat of the reality of providence, thenits method, and thirdly its scope. Now no Jew, even though hewere beside himself, could fail to recognize providence,1

knowing the wonders that took place in Egypt, and havingheard, moreover, of the things that happened in the wilderness,events wherein providence was more clearly manifest to men

1 The difficulty of translating this sentence arises from the participlemainomenos, "raving," in apposition to the subject "a Jew." If it were notthere, the sentence would clearly mean, "Yes, and a Jew would recognizeprovidence." Some condition is required to balance the optative, and itis expressed in the participle. Ellebodius, followed by Orth, took theparticiple to mean "insane," so as to translate "a Jew would recognizeprovidence—if he were off his head!" or, as it might be turned, "no saneJew would recognize providence." But there is no reason why insanityshould confer faith in providence, and the sense thus attained is unsatis-factory. If, however, mainomenos is taken to mean "deranged, not in fullcommand of his faculties," we may render the sentence, "a Jew wouldrecognize providence, even though he could recognize nothing else." Thetranslation here given takes mainomenos as "even though mad," and doesnot follow Ellebodius.


than if they had seen it with their very eyes; having clearly per-ceived, besides, many such works of providence as admit nopossibility of doubt, in the prophets and during the Babyloniancaptivity.2 Christians, for their part, have all those things toteach them the truth of providence,but, supremely, the divinest,and, in its exceeding philanthropy, the most incredible of allthe works of providence, God's incarnation on our behalf.

It is not only, however, to Jews and Christians,3 but topagans also, that we must make good our contention. Come,then, and let us prove that there is a providence, arguing onlyfrom such things as Greeks themselves believe. One might thendemonstrate the existence of providence by the same argumentsthat we have employed to prove that there is a God. For thecontinued existence of all things, especially where they aresubject to genesis and decay, the place and order of whateverhas being, maintained always according to the same pattern,the utterly undeviating courses of the stars, the circle of the yearand the returning seasons, the equality of day-time and night-time, when taken over the year, and the measured and utterlyregular lengthening .and shortening of either—how could any-thing continue to be managed like that, if there was no onethinking it out beforehand?4

Not only so, but the retribution that overtakes trespasses, andeven more, the circumstantial disclosure of the trespasses them-selves in situations where there was no one able to bring homea charge, proves the existence of providence. Both Hebrewscriptures and Greek letters are full of stories to such effect. Forsuch is the story set forth in Scripture of the trials of Susanna,5

or in profane literature, of the poet Ibycus. For Ibycus was

2 They could see providence in God's overruling of history so as to disciplinehis people; predicted by the pre-exilic prophets, fulfilled in the captivity,and crowned in the return of the pious remnant.

3 The Greek toutous might here refer back to Jews and Christians, or toChristians only. The present translation demands the former alternative,while that of Ellebodius demands the latter. This is quite possible. Thedifficulty in the way of Ellebodius is the absence of any word implying"although" in qualification of Jewish knowledge of the revealed works ofprovidence.

4 This recapitulates what is contained in the Stoic notion of generalprovidence, and adds the notion of One thinking it out beforehand, anotion which was really derived from Scripture.

5 In the History of Susanna, providence intervenes by raising up Daniel, andgiving him the insight to expose the false evidence of the elders. Thepassage is the more appropriate to Nemesius* purpose because Susanna(w. 42, 43) has declared her faith in God's omniscience.


murdered by certain persons while no one was there to takehis part or bear witness for him of these men's conspiracy.Nevertheless, as he was being done to death, he beheld somecranes, and cried out to them, "O ye cranes, avenge mymurder." The city authorities tried to trace the murderers, butwithout success. Howbeit, some cranes flew over the audienceseated at a performance in the theatre. But when the murdererssaw the cranes, they laughed and said, "Lo, the avengers ofIbycus!" They were overheard by someone sitting near them,who informed the magistrates. The men were arrested and con-fessed to the murder.6

There are numbers more of such tales to be found in old-time writings. If anyone cared to collect them, he could extendthis line of argument indefinitely. But though all evil-doers arenot convicted in this way, while some seem even to escape scotfree, let no one on that account deny that there is providence.For providence follows out its care for men not in one way onlybut in many and various ways.

Not the least cogent proof of the existence of providence isthe structure and proportion of our bodies, which, thoughthose bodies are subject to birth and decay, is yet preservedalways constant. The forethought of providence is to be dis-cerned in every member of the body, as the studious can gather,out of various treatises, for themselves.7 Moreover, the varie-gated colouring to be observed in different animals, the beautyof which is maintained in every specimen, proclaims aloud theexistence of providence.6 Ibycus, of Rhegium (Reggio) in Calabria, flourished in the sixth century

B.C. He was an erotic poet, and is credited with seven books of Dorianlyric poetry. He is also said to have invented the triangular cithern. Hismurder took place near Corinth. Plutarch tells the story in his work, Ongarrulity, 14, but knows nothing of any hue and cry. Ibycus was merelymissing when the incident in the theatre took place. The moral whichPlutarch draws is the advisability of keeping one's mouth shut. That,however, is no argument that the story was not commonly told with themoral "murder will out." Suidas (s.v. Ibycus) says that "the cranes ofIbycus" had become a proverb for the circumstantial revealing ofcrime.

7 Greek interest in the parts and bodies of men and animals took literaryform in Aristotle, On the parts of animals. Nemesius no doubt had speciallyin mind Galen, On the uses of the parts of the body, with its observations onthe way in which members are adapted by their structure to fulfil theirnatural functions. Nemesius now adds the telling point about the stabilityof the characteristics of the species in spite of the incessant change anddecay in the individuals in which those characteristics are exemplified;in which Nemesius reads a divine purpose incessantly reaffirmed.


COMMENTARY

60. Approaches to belief in providence. Chs. XLII-XLIV are noexpected part of a work on the nature of man, and may be re-garded as an appendix arising from the foregoing discussion ofman's free-will. For, whereas Augustine sought to solve theproblems of free-will by the mysterious action of God withinindividuals, Nemesius is evidently setting out to solve the sameproblems solely in terms of divine action surrounding theindividual in the workings of providence. But, with thatdifference, Nemesius is as much minded as Augustine to "letGod be God." So independent did these last chapters appear,to some of the ancients, of what had gone before, that theywere treated as forming a separate opuscule, On providence. It isthus that Anastasius Sinaita {Question xviii) cites from the endof ch. XLIV as from a work of Nemesius with that title. Ch. xu iappears in a Munich MS under the same title.

In this section, Nemesius indicates that Scripture containsmuch to convince men of the reality of providence. Fourth-century pagan thought was ready to welcome tales of theurgy,and pagan literature and legend contained themes that mightserve as a bridge to Scripture. Then there was the Stoic doctrineof a general providence, a kind of rationality of cause andeffect, as though the world-soul had a goal towards whichthese things tended. Vague as it was, this notion providedNemesius with a starting point, as he produces arguments forthought and purpose in the ordering of nature.

[M. 336.8-339. 16]TEXT

61. Another thing that shows the existence of providence isthe agreement among all men to acknowledge the need to prayand to perform divine service by means of sacred offerings andholy places. For how, or to whom, should anyone pray, if therewere no mind guiding the world ? Again that zeal to do good,which is naturally and keenly felt by those of unpervertedcharacter, points us to providence; for it is as looking for arecompense from providence that we choose to confer benefitseven upon those who cannot requite us.

Take away providence, and forthwith wickedness is concededto those who have the power to work it. Mercy and the fear ofGod are taken away, and at the same time virtue and godliness.


For unless God foresees, he neither punishes, nor distributes en-couragement to those that do well, nor does he ward off theirhurts from those that are wronged. Who then would any longerworship God, if he is nowise of the least service to us ? Takeaway providence, and prophecy and all foreknowledge is takenaway also. But any such supposition is out of accord with eventsthat are taking place almost every day. For many are the mani-festations of divine aid to men in need. Many, too, are thealleviations vouchsafed to sick folk through dreams, and manyhave been the predictions, in every generation, that have seentheir fulfilment. Many are they whose hands are stained withblood, or that have done some dreadful deed of ill, who passday and night in utter terror.

But the supposition that there is no providence is wrong.1

God is good. Being good, he is given to doing good, and todo good, he must be provident. What need is there to recountthe works of the creation, their proportion and harmony,their stability and order, and the service which each creaturerenders to the whole? What need to point out that nothingwould be right if it were otherwise than as it is, that nothingleaves room for improvement, and that nothing could spareany attribute that it possesses? Nay, everything is madeperfect and good, everything was wisely and providentlycreated.

Let us, however, reserve this point for examination when wecome to discuss creation,2 lest there happen to us what has be-fallen many writers on providence; for they extol creation when1 This renders allos te, on the supposition that Nemesius is using it in the

sense that makes what follows contrast with what has gone before. He hasbeen considering what would follow if there be no providence. He nowdismisses this assumption to assert God's goodness as creator. And thisintroduces the distinction between the two forms of divine goodness,revealed in creation and in providence respectively.

2 Matthaei argues that Nemesius has already spoken of creation at thebeginning of the book, and so proposes to read the indicative, here,instead of the subjunctive. But the theme of the absolute perfection ofcreation outlined in the last paragraph goes beyond what has been saidof creation, or rather, of the universe, in the first chapter. It would seem,therefore, that Nemesius intended to follow the theme of providence,which occupies the remainder of the existing work, with a chapter on theperfection of creation, using the last word in its strict sense. For this, heneeds to prepare the way, by disengaging the notion of creation from thatof providence and the present universe. The fact that there is no chapteron creation, together with instances that have been noticed, of lack ofrevision in the work as we have it, would, once more, suggest that deathovertook Nemesius before his task was completed.


they should have been extolling providence.3 The theme ofcreation leads us, it is true, to discourse of providence, but thetwo things are quite separate, since providence and creation arenot one and the same. For the glory of creation is that allcreated things have been made well, but the glory of providenceis to take good care of what exists. Now these two activities donot invariably go together, as can be seen from men of this orthat craft or calling. For some of them set themselves the task ofmaking something well, and have no care beyond the making;one might name, for example, carpenters, copyists, or modellers.Then there are others whose whole work is to take care ofthings, and to make provision for them, such as herdsmen orshepherds. While, therefore, we should so construct our chapteron creation as to show in suitable ways, that the things that havecome into existence have been made well, our present argumenton providence should show that the needed care has been be-stowed on creatures since creation. How, then, is it that maninvariably begets man, and ox always genders ox, while eachkind of plant grows from its own particular seed, and from noother, in the absence of any providence ? For if anyone con-tends that it is out of accordance with its original genesis that athing progresses through a succession of stages, this is no differ-ent from saying that providence and creation go together handin hand. For, if what was created makes progress through itsown successive stages, it is clear that providence, also, originatedat the creation, to continue its work. For the way things develop,once they are made, is the work of providence. The inference tobe drawn is simply this, that the Maker of all things is, at thesame time, their providence.

3 Heinrich A. Koch, in his Quellenuntersuchungen zu Nemesius von Emesa,(Berlin, 1921) points out that Theodoret, the younger contemporary andcompatriot of Nemesius, has ten homilies, Of providence, and devotesChapter vi of his Cure of pagan sickness to that subject. Theodoret fallsinto the confusion of which Nemesius speaks. And Nemesius would nothave made the distinction between providence and creation, had he nothad in mind some doctrine of the perfection of the work of creation. Thebasis of this Optimistic doctrine of creation may be the scriptural phrasethat "God saw" each detail of his creation "and it was good." Nemesius'most probable source is Origen's great Commentary on Genesis, which weknow to have reproduced much of the optimistic philosophy of Posidon-ius. It is clear from Origen's First principles, in. 5, that Origen thought ofan all-embracing providence of God in which the creation of this worldwas but one incident. It may thus be from Origen that Nemesius derivedhis distinction of creation from providence.


COMMENTARY

61. Providence continues the work begun in creation. The first partof the section continues the proof of the existence of providenceby pointing to those human instincts which desiderate theexistence of providence. The second part disengages providencefrom creation as its complement in revealing the nature of God.

[M. 339-I6-343.5-]TEXT

62. Anyone who gives consideration to human personalappearance, and sees how everyone in so many thousands isdifferent, so that you never find two persons completely alike,cannot but marvel at such a work. And if he ponders the reasonfor it, must he not find that this individuality of shape, differ-entiated in respect of each individual feature, is due to provi-dence? For, look! If all men faithfully reproduced the samestamp of countenance, what utter confusion would reign in ouraffairs? In what ignorance and darkness a man would be en-veloped if he could not distinguish one of his own familiars, ordiscriminate a stranger, an enemy, or a scoundrel, from a dearand kind friend. In the famous phrase of Anaxagoras, "Allwere then undifferentiated," with a vengeance!1 If that wereso, there would be nothing to stop one from having intercourse

1 This dictum of Anaxagoras is recorded by Diogenes Laertius, in his Livesof the Sophists, Bk. 11. sect. 6.

Anaxagoras was born at Clazomenae in Asia Minor about 500 B.C. Hemigrated to Athens in the generation before that of Socrates. He is to becredited with bringing to Athens the spirit of scientific enquiry. Aprimitive physicist, his account of the universe began with the words,"All was undifferentiated; then came mind and put things into seemlyorder." Or, again, "Things began in homogeneity, and the whole worldwas compounded of small homogeneous particles." With Anaxagoras,mind enters the universe as a Deus ex machina. But when he speculated thatthe sun consisted of molten matter and was as big as the Peloponnese,Athenian opinion was shocked, and Anaxagoras, like a precursor toSocrates, was indicted for subverting the established beliefs. Pericleswith difficulty obtained his acquittal, and he left Athens about 450 B.C.,dying at Lampsacus some twenty years later. He seems to be the initiatorof the theory that nature is the work of design, and Aristotle may be heldto have been indebted to him for the conception of reason at work in theworld-order. Our author has, therefore, chosen his citation particularlywell to support the argument that differentiation is the supreme work ofprovidence.


with one's mother or sister. There would be nothing to preventrobbery, or any other wicked deed, from being perpetratedopenly, given the possibility of instant escape; for the criminalmight be seen afterwards without fear of recognition. No lawcould be enforced, nor polity maintained. Fathers would notknow their children, nor children their fathers; nor could anyother human relationship be kept up, since every man, indealing with others, would be as good as blind, being but littleserved in having sight, seeing that it would not serve him todistinguish anything except age and stature.2

Providence has been the donor to us of so great blessings, bydifferentiating the forms of men totally and universally, andnever, at any time, omitting to do so. That is the strongesttestimony to the existence of providence, namely, individuality,extending, as it does, to each single person being recognizableby exact detail of shape, feature and voice. And if, perchanceevery such detail is not exactly remembered, memory of the facesuffices. For, as an overplus, providence gave us this, as well,our differences of complexion; so that the infirmity of humannature might have many kinds of aid. And I imagine that thehost of different animals, that have a generally uniform appear-ance, as is the case, say, with daws and crows, have also certaindifferences of aspect whereby they recognize each other inmating.3 Of course daws and crows flock together often, and inlarge numbers, but they separate to mate, each hen and cockknowing its own mate. Now how could they recognize oneanother unless each had some mark of individuality, which,though not easy to be discerned by us, is by nature easily seenby other birds of that feather?

Finally (since our argument is addressed to Greeks), tokens,oracles, omens and celestial portents, according to the ideas oftheir nation (as they themselves profess) assuring us that theevents which they indicated will follow, have their power ofsignification always and entirely by reason of providence; and

2 Shakespeare's Comedy of errors embodies the theme that the existenceof just two people who are virtually without difference of form couldintroduce endless confusion and absurdity into human affairs.This may measure the boldness of the fancy that here endeavours topicture the consequences of all human beings having exactly the sameshape.

3 Daws, corones, and crows, corakes, are both mentioned in the SeptuagintOld Testament, but not in the same passages. The probability is that thispassage, whoever may have been its original author, arose from first-handobservation and reflection, and not from any literary source.


on the same account the events prove true to what was signi-fied.4

COMMENTARY

62. The recognizable identity of everyman a signal work of provi-dence. The maintenance of all individualities is the most remark-able work of providence and the most convincing proof thatprovidence exists. In this section we seem to have somethingthat is not in evidence as a commonplace. That is not to saythat the theme was original with Nemesius. A man with apenchant for independent speculation would hardly composehis arguments in the form of a mosaic of other men's thoughts,as Nemesius is seen to do. The question of the authorship of theargument may be left open, in spite of the occurrence of thefirst person in it.

[M. 343.6-344.13.]

XLIII. What is providence?

TEXT

63. That providence exists is clear, both from what we havejust been saying, and from what we shall be saying next. Let usnow declare what providence is. Providence (for so we phraseit) is the care that God takes over things that exist. Anotheraccepted definition runs thus: providence is that purpose of Godwhereby all existing things receive their most favourable out-come.1 But, if providence is divine purpose, there is no possible4 Nemesius believed that true and inspired prediction takes place. As an

argumentum ad hominem, in addressing himself to a Greek pagan, he willallow that their oracles and omens may sometimes not be delusions. Butthis is to establish the principle that, if there is anywhere true prediction,it depends on human contact with a mind which knows the future. Tobelieve in prediction is therefore to believe that such a mind exists. Itwere then absurd to question the existence of providence.

1 These two definitions of providence came to be well known, and stand atthe head of Suicer's article on providence in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticusor Lexicon of ecclesiastical Greek. The reason for this is not that the workof Nemesius was ever well known, but that these definitions, along with anumber of passages from Nemesius, were included by the eighth-centuryFather, John of Damascus, in the second book of his Exposition of theorthodox faith, John received the posthumous approval of the seventhecumenical synod, in A.D. 787, as the encyclopaedic theologian of ortho-doxy, and his Exposition was accepted as a theological standard for theeastern Church. It is the more remarkable, therefore, that he should havenot only adopted a large number of passages from Nemesius, in that part


doubt that everything that takes place does so in what, quiteliterally, is both the most excellent manner, and that mostworthy of God's majesty; in fact they happen in the only wayconsistent with good, so that no better disposition could belooked for. Moreover, the Creator of existent things, and theirprovidence, must be one and the same God. For it would beinconsistent and unseemly for one to create and another to carefor what was created. For such a division clearly betrays limitedpowers.

What we are saying is amply reflected in the lives of livingcreatures, since everything that genders also takes care to feedits young, while man goes further and provides for his childreneverything else that their life requires, of whatever kind and inwhatever quantity.2 There are, it is true, creatures that makeno provision for their young, but it is to be accounted mere in-firmity on their part that they do not. It has been proved,therefore, that God is the God of providence, and that provi-dence is his purpose being worked out.

COMMENTARY

63. Definitions of providence. Providence is God's care for thecontinued good of what he has created, the working out in de-tail of his beneficent purpose for every creature.

[M. 344-I4-348.5-]

XLIV. Enquiry into the scope of providence

TEXT

64. We have established the fact of providence and its nature.It remains now to say whether it is general or particular, orwhether it is both at once. Plato will have it that providence hassway both over the general conduct of the universe, and overparticular events as well. He distinguishes three grades ofprovidence. For, says he, there is a primary providence, that ofthe supreme God, which extends primarily to the ideas, but

of the work that deals with the Christian doctrine of the world and man,but have let the order and choice of divisions in Nemesius influence thoseof his own book. These facts throw a strong light upon the substantialcontribution which Nemesius made to Christian thought, within therange of those subjects with which he concerned himself.

2 This passage is a development of the theme that is present in germ inLuke 11:13; divine providence inferred a fortiori from man's behaviour.


after that it extends generally over the whole of the universe;that is to say, it is a providence over heaven and the stars, andover all universals, namely over the kinds of things, their sub-stance, quantity and quality, with other such-like generalattributes, and their subordinate forms.

But there is a secondary providence, ruling the generation ofordinary animals and plants, and indeed everything that par-ticipates in birth and decay. And this providence is exercised bythe under-gods that patrol the heavens1 (now Aristotle alsorefers the generation of such creatures to the sun and to theZodiac). The tertiary providence in the Platonic scheme is thatwhich manages and directs actions which regulate the courseof life, and orders those good things which we name natural,material or instrumental, together with their contraries. Ofthis providence, certain spiritual creatures, ranged about theearth, have been put in charge, to be guardians over humanaffairs.2 The secondary and tertiary providence derive from the

1 This means the sun, moon and seven planets. When astronomy recog-nized the relation of the paths of these heavenly bodies across the sky tothe positions in the sky of the constellations of fixed stars, it had dis-covered the means of using these bodies as an accurate clock to mark thepassing of the climatic and seasonal year. This was, of course, a great helpto agriculture, since it was now known when to prune, sow, and the like.But the connection thus made between seasonal occurrences in animaland vegetable life and the motion and behaviour of the celestial bodieswhose positions in the sky marked the advances of the year, came to betaken as a causal connection. If sowing at a particular time in the yearbrought the best harvest, it was supposed to be through the mysteriousinfluence of the celestial bodies, personified as under-gods, who had an-nounced the season. The Greeks called the zone of the sky which con-tained the paths of the sun, moon and planets, the zodiacal circle(literally "zone of the little living creatures") or Zodiac. In short, theZodiac, wherein the sun, moon and planets moved against a background ofconstellations, was a true clock to tell nature's time for birth and decay,but superstition transformed it into the cause of birth and decay: andPlato and Aristotle accepted this inversion of the facts.

2 The Platonic conception of tertiary providence rests on animistic founda-tions. Each man's tutelary daimon concerns himself with the man'sactivities, and minor deities preside over the stages of physical life, thehouse, and other circumstances which are individual to each person.These daimonia and minor deities are the agents of Plato's tertiaryprovidence. They are thought to be in proximity to those for or againstwhom they work. Daimonia ought not to be rendered into English as"demons." In Christian thought, the word "demon" has gone steadilydownhill, through having "angel" as its correlative. But in Greekpaganism, daimon and daimonion had rather beneficent than malevolentassociations. Note that Nemesius says nothing against this tertiaryprovidence in the Platonic scheme. The early Christian Fathers were very28—c.j.


primary, so that the supreme God rules all things by his might,as ordering alike the secondary and tertiary agents of provi-dence. It is praiseworthy in Plato thus to refer all things to God,and to describe all providence as dependent on his will.3 He is atfault, on the other hand, in calling that a secondary providence,which the motions of the heavenly bodies effect, for what de-pends on them is not providence but fate and necessity.4 Forwhatever be the conjunctions of the heavenly bodies, they are soof necessity, and there is no alternative.5 And we proved, sometime ago, that nothing to do with providence happens of neces-sity.6 The Stoic philosophers, advocating belief at once in fateand in our own free-will, leave no possible room for provi-dence.7 But, in fact, they bring human free-will to nought, as

ready to accept the notion of a delegation, by God, to spiritual creatures,of portions and phases of the world process, without attributing to suchcreatures either spiritual perfection or the character of devils. Thisnotion ceased to be in favour after the condemnation of the memory ofOrigen, who upheld the doctrine that each race of living creatives hadits guardian angel. So Jerome, in his Commentary on Habacuc (i. 14)flatly denies that the maintenance of kinds of irrational creatures rests onany such basis, but places it under the general providence of God. It is asign that the outlook of Nemesius is not that of a writer of days after thecondemnation of Origen, that he should be so ready to christen Platonicdoctrines of providence.

3 Nemesius may not have been himself the constructor of this systematicview of Platonic providence. The signs are that he read commentaries oncertain works of Plato, some of which may have been of Christian origin.Not only in this section, but elsewhere in the chapter, there are phrasesthat ring of the tenth book of Plato's Laws. The scheme omits mention ofthe world-soul, in regard to providence over universals, and it is difficultto give any meaning to providence over the Ideas. This suggests thateither Nemesius or his hypothetical Christian source principally wishedto claim Plato as a witness to providence as the work of the supreme God.

4 The Syrian readers of Nemesius would not think of celestial beings (sun,moon and planets) as exercising their influence upon birth and decay bya use of free-will, as Plato did. For them, the heavenly bodies movedunder mechanical forces, and the influence exerted by their conjunctionsand oppositions were therefore thought to be no less predetermined thanthe positions of the several bodies in the sky at any moment. With this inview, Nemesius cannot endorse the Platonic doctrine without this amend-ment, that the part played by the heavenly bodies is mechanical.

s Nemesius is not here admitting that the celestial bodies have any influenceupon sublunary affairs, but by insisting on the mechanical character ofthe movements of those bodies, seeks to exclude them from any part inprovidence, even allowing that they had such influence.

« Section 53.i In spite of the Stoic use of the term providence (Chrysippus wrote a

book, On providence), and the similarity of much Stoic terminology to thatof the Church, Nemesius sees that the Stoics are speaking a different


we proved above.8 Democritus, Heraclitus, and Epicurus9 willadmit neither general nor particular providence. Epicurus, infact, says that what is blessed and incorrupt is neither involvedin pains of its own nor is the cause of trouble to any other, be-cause it is immune alike from wrath and favour. All suchpassions, Epicurus says, belong to imperfection. Wrath is aliento the nature of gods, says he, because it comes of being crossed,and divinity is never crossed. So these thinkers follow out theirown principles. For as they hold that the universe just cametogether of itself, it is no wonder that they declare that there isno providence to take care of that which has no Creator ? It isself-evident that what came into being of itself, must perforcecontinue of itself. Therefore our stand against them must betaken over their first opinion, namely that concerning creation.For once that is refuted, what has been said already will serveto prove the existence of a providence, and so we must reservethis refutation until its appropriate occasion.10

COMMENTARY

64. Plato the best philosopher on providence. In this chapter,Nemesius sets out to show that providence regards and touchesthe lives of individuals. Accordingly in this section, he selectsPlato for preference over the later philosophers on this subject.

[M. 348.5-35I-7-]TEXT #

65. Let us now consider the opinion of Aristotle and otherswho assert that providence does not extend over particulars;

language from Christians, and, as regards our faith in divine providence,are not allies but foes.

8 Section 53.9 Nemesius apparently selects these three names as representing the

mechanistic Atomists. See the notes to Section 11. It is surprising thatHeraclitus should be thus inserted between Democritus and Epicurus.Presumably Nemesius associated Heraclitus with Democritus in someway, perhaps because of the fashion for calling Democritus the "laugh-ing" and Heraclitus the "weeping" philosopher.

10 Nemesius sets out the Epicurean argument in the most favourable form,admitting that the conclusion follows from the premiss. This is becausehe had the intention of destroying the Epicurean theory of the self-origination of the universe, in the chapter on the nature of the work ofcreation which he never completed.


seeing that Aristotle, to judge by a hint in the sixth book of hisNicomachean Ethics, will have it that it is Nature that manages thedetails of our lives.1 Nature, he says, is divine and inherent inall creatures, and suggests to each individual instinctively howto choose what is profitable and avoid what may do hurt. For,as he says, every living creature chooses out the nourishmentsuited to itself, pursues whatever is good for it, and knows byinstinct what will cure its ailments. Euripides and Menander2

1 The charge which Nemesius brings against Aristotle is just. Aristotle hada clear sense of design in Nature. All things strive for the good attainableby them, within their limitations. But Aristotle was agnostic regardingthe relations of God with Nature, and of any moral government of theworld that could be called divine providence. As for the Olympians, hesays (Nicomachean Ethics, x. 8), "If there be any care of human affairs bythem, as men think there is," philosophers should be the favoured ofheaven.The question is why Nemesius should refer to the sixth book of theEthics, in this connection. It does not deal with the general theme ofNature seeking its own ends, but with deliberation, prudence, and mentalability. It is upon this book that Nemesius has drawn so heavily in hisown ch. xxxiv. Perhaps Nemesius paid attention to the argument, to-wards the end of the book, that since intuitive reason, and judgment, arefaculties that have their marked periods in a man's life, they must be giftsof Nature, and drew the conclusion that therefore the success of prudencein ensuring a man's interests is that upon which trust should be placed,rather than in any over-ruling of circumstances. He might therefore reachthe view that Aristotle was "hinting" that Nature manages the details ofour lives. It is possible, however, that this conclusion was not drawn byNemesius from the text of Aristotle, but was derived from a Christiancommentary on the Ethics, in which was criticised the self-sufficiency ofthe "prudent man" of Aristotle.

2 The dramatist Euripides, 406-480 B.C. was the younger contemporaryof the Athenian tragedian! Aeschylus and Sophocles, and broke off fromtheir technique, to mould tragedy to the changed outlook and mood ofthe Athenian public. It might seem strange that Nemesius should pickupon him as a denier of providence, because, as Tyrrell says in his editionof the Bacchae, Euripides sought to interpret the popular myths of thegods in a manner consistent with belief in a benevolent providence. Hisinvention of the dramatic form, the deus ex machina, is for this purpose, andthe denouement is followed, in the Bacchae and the Alcestis, by a finalchorus declaring that "manifold things unhoped for, the gods to accom-plishment bring." The theme of Ion is that "the good at last shall over-come, at last attain their right" despite "the blind haste of mortals, andtheir little faith." Menander, 342-291 B.C., admirer and imitator ofEuripides, and chief figure of the new comedy, is notable for his moralepigrams, and, on the whole, tended to show the gods as playing the partof providence. Nemesius might have in view such a character as Onesi-mus, in the Epitrepontes, who holds that the indifference of the gods throwsmoral responsibility on men, and concludes that "to each of us the godshave given a character that fits him to be master of his fate."


in certain passages, deny that any of the gods exercise provi-dence, but declare that the mind in each individual is hisprivate providence. But mind knows only such things as liewithin our power, whether things to do, or arts to plan, orobjects for contemplation; while providence is concerned withthings that do not lie within our power, such as whether weshould be rich or poor, well or sick—things which mind cannotin the least effect. But then (to return to Aristotle's opinion),neither can Nature. For what Nature's works are is easily seen.Then what have mind or Nature to do with the fact thatsometimes a murderer is punished and sometimes he gets offscot free? Unless one says that the part played by mind andNature is providence, but that what determines the second typeof issue is fate. But if the part played by mind and Nature isprovidence and the rest of what happens is fate, there remainsno place for free-will. That, however, is wrong, for we haveshown that what the mind does, whether for action or contem-plation, is an exercise of free-will.3 On the other hand, not allthat is providential is the work of Nature, although the work ofNature be providential. Many things that happen under provi-dence are not works of Nature, as has been shown in connectionwith the discovery of murder.4 Nature is a department ofprovidence, and not the whole. So much, then, for those whoascribe particular providence to mind and Nature.

There are others5 who allow that God cares for the perman-

3 The allusion appears to be to ch. XLI.4 The case of Ibycus in ch. XLII.5 We shall hardly identify these "others" with any known philosophic

position. Rather, the expressions which Nemesius places upon their lipsare those of vulgar cynicism. The Greek philosopher was not "cynical"in that sense. He had come face to face with the problem of the accidentalor fortuitious from early days, and found it particularly difficult to bringto a clean solution. Tyche (chance, fortune, accident) had to be given aplace in the complex god-^fmow-providence-fate-necessity-nature. InBk. iv of the Laws of Plato the Athenian stranger observes how legislationsucceeds in bringing together the ideal and the accidental, which aretherefore capable of reconciliation. Plato concludes that, in some way,God rules, while chance co-operates in his rule. This is to divinize Tyche.And because politics combine principles and opportunism, cities wor-shipped Tyche or a Tyche of their own, as a goddess. This meant that tychemust be justified at the bar of moral conscience. Philosophers accordinglytended to argue that the accidental, could we but know it, is both in-telligible and right. We may see how this was attempted in a passage thatlies very near to Nemesius at this point. This is ch. rx of Sallustius, Con-cerning the gods and the universe (Edn. by A. D. Nock, Cambridge, 1926).Sallustius appears to have been one of those who surrounded the emperor


ence of the world-order, so that nothing whatever lapses frombeing, but that this is his only providence. They attribute theoutcome of particular events to chance. That is why, they say,so many injustices, so many murders take place, and, to cut along story short, why every kind of evil is rife among men. It isby chance, they say in explanation of these evils, that some menescape retribution, while others are punished, in a world wherenothing ever falls out in accordance with strict reason or anylaw. And there, where neither law nor reason reigns, how cananyone assert, they ask, that God is taking care of things ? See-ing that good men turn out most often to suffer injustice, to bekept under, and to live surrounded with a thousand ills, whilewicked and violent men increase in power, wealth, position, andall the other desirable things of this present life.

COMMENTARY

65. Where Plato is right, other Greeks err, regarding providence.The section is an answer to those who refuse to acknowledge adivine providence extending to particular events and circum-stances. These are of three sorts, (i) those who put the workingof Nature in the place of providence, (ii) those who acknow-ledge no providence but that which proceeds from humanminds, (iii) those who add to the last view the positive exclusionof any other rational factor, so that, apart from what man cando, all else is blind chance.

Julian in his revival of pagan religion. He was therefore, at most, only acouple of decades the senior of Nemesius.

Sallustius, in ch. vu of this work, declares that God cares for thepermanence of the world-order. He does not mean, of course, that Godintervenes in the world process to prevent something in it from perishing.Neither do the "others" in the passage of Nemesius. What Sallustiusmeans is that the overthrow of the world-order is unthinkable because noother could be worthy of God. He defends providence with argumentclosely similar to that of Nemesius, and goes on to call tyche (ch. ix) adynamis of the gods. This power works in ways that we call inexplicableor inequitable, but their total effect amounts to rough justice. Everyonegets what he really values, the bad the perishing goods of the body, andthe good, the things that promote their immortal being. So tyche is not theantithesis of providence. Thus Nemesius is following Sallustius (or themoralistic tradition to which he belonged) and hoping to succeed wherehe failed, helped by the Christian dogma of the life eternal, in convincingthe common man.


[M. 35I.7-354-9-]TEXT

66. Now it seems to me that people who talk like this areignoring many quite other principles1 that bear on the workingof providence, and, in particular, they are ignoring the im-mortality of the soul. For, by unthinkingly assuming that thesoul is mortal they round off all human affairs within the spanof this life, whence it follows that they have distorted views onwhat things are good. For they think just those people to befortunate and happy who are rolling in wealth, who can plumethemselves on their public honours, or can find complacency inthe possession of any other blessings of this present life. But inproportion as they grossly exaggerate the importance of bodilyand external well-being, they take too little account of the goodof the soul. For those good things are the best that apply to thebest in us. By so much the more, therefore, do virtues excelwealth, health, and all the rest, in proportion as the soul takesprecedence of the body. Consequently a man is truly happywho has virtues, whether or not he has any other blessings be-sides. If he had virtues and the other blessings too, his is happi-ness in a broad and general sense.2 But if he has virtues aloneand for their own sakes, his is the clear-cut form of happiness.For some things are thought of in a clearly defined way, aswhen we say two ells of stuff, while others are thought of in avague and general way, as when we say, "a heap." For you cantake away two measures from a heap, and what remains willstill be a heap.

Now if you subtract all bodily and external blessings from thecondition of broad and general happiness, and leave nothingwhatever but the virtues, it is, even so, a state of happiness. Forvirtue, even by itself, suffices for that state. Every good man,therefore, is happy, and every bad man wretched, even thoughthe bad man have all the good things of fortune3 (as they call1 These "other principles" prove to be (i) that spiritual good is imperish-

able and carnal goods transitory, (ii) that the state of happiness isqualitative rather than quantitative, (jii) that valuation based on know-ledge of the present only is bound to be false, and (iv) that conduct basedon such presumptions is impiety.

2 The state of happiness that springs of being virtuous is something of pre-cise and constant meaning. The vaguer presumption of happiness basedon various grounds is apt to prove, on investigation, to be largely illusion.We may suspect that Nemesius has here overshortened his borrowedargument. 3 tyche.


them) heaped one upon another. But this truth is commonlyignored, and folk suppose the well-fed and wealthy to be theonly happy men; wherefore they blame providence whichdirects the affairs of men in ways that correspond not only withwhat is under the eyes, but also with a divine foreknowledgethat we do not share. For since God knows that poverty is bestfor a man who is kind and good while poor, but who, if wealthwere added to him would let it corrupt his judgement, he keepshim poor; and for his good. Often, on the other hand, Godknows that a rich man would give more trouble if he lackedpossessions (for he would then engage in robberies and blood-shed, or in some other and even greater crimes), and so hesuffers him to reap the profit of wealth. So it is often an ad-vantage to us to be poor, to be bereft of our children, or haveour slaves decamp, when, through our children turning outbadly, or our slaves robbing us, the keeping of them would haveproved more bitter than their loss. For we, who do not know atall what the future has in store, and see merely our presentcircumstances, misjudge what will profit us. God, on the otherhand, sees what is to come as if it were present. These things areaddressed, however, to those who make themselves God'sjudges. To them may also fittingly be cited those words ofScripture, "Shall the clay say to the potter"4 and so forth.

How shall we not shun a man who legislates in opposition tothe laws of God,5 and issues decrees in opposition to the worksof providence, whereas he dares not breath a word against thelaws of men? Wherefore, leaving such extravagances, or, tospeak more truly, blasphemies, on one side, let us demonstratethe error of denying particular providence while acknowledginguniversal and general providence.

COMMENTARY

66. The danger of adopting a cynical attitude. The argument ofthe grumblers errs by not considering the good of the soul, andis, in fact, blasphemous.4lsa.45.-9.5 This can hardly be other than an allusion to the Laws passage already

mentioned. The Athenian stranger proposed to legislate by bringing to-gether realism and the recognized ideals of the moral law. But the manwho thinks tyche to be the heartless mocker of men conforms his conductto this amoral standard. Nemesius thinks of divine law as revealed inScripture, and points to the peculiar danger to a man's soul involved incynicism about the "tricks of fortune."


This section is a digression from the main argument, andarises from the mention of the "others/5 in the last part ofSection 65, who grumble at their luck, and gird against theRuler of the universe for permitting life to be so full of injustice.To this popular opposition to the Christian doctrine of provi-dence, Nemesius replies with what might as well be a cynicdiatribe against popular error as a piece of Christian apologetic.The presumption is that he had the diatribe ready to his hand,in some way.

The superiority of the happiness that comes from the attain-ment of virtues over that derived from any other source is acharacteristic dogma of the philosophers of the Socratic tradi-tion. But this dogma was not based upon belief in rewards andpunishments in a life to come. It is the Christian in Nemesiusthat drags in the reference to the immortality of the soul, thepoint of which is that no judgement can be passed upon thefortunes of this life until the consequences of men's conduct fortheir destiny beyond the grave have been cast into the scales.But Nemesius completes the section without making this thoughtexplicit; which is hardly credible had he been thinking theargument out himself, rather than rehandling an argument puttogether by someone else. The point of choosing the latter alter-native, as a piece of apologetic tactics, is that the diatribewould carry some weight with thoughtful non-Christianreaders, and so win them unconsciously on to the side of theapologist. In the same way, the earlier Christian apologists re-peated the attacks upon immoral pagan mythology which hadlong been accepted as just by most people of culture, because itenlisted on their side those readers who might be at all accessibleto their message.

Nemesius gives the diatribe a Christian turn again at theconclusion, where the murmurer is convicted of being notmerely foolish but sacrilegious. And its conversion into a ser-monette is completed by giving it a text (somewhat perfunc-torily) in Isa. 45:9 (Septuagint text). Reasoned argument forbelief in providence extending to particulars is resumed in thefollowing section.

[M. 354.9-357.16.]TEXT

67. For there are only three reasons that anyone can urgeagainst there being a providence over particulars. These are,


that God does not know how fair a deed it would be to extendhis providence to taking care for particulars, that God is un-willing to do so, or that he cannot do so. But ignorance anddenseness are qualities altogether, and in the extreme, alien toGod's blessed nature. For he is knowledge, wisdom, and intelli-gence in very essence. And how could that be hid from Godwhich no right-minded man could fail to see, namely that ifevery particular should perish, then the universe itself willperish too? For the universe is the sum-total of all particulars.God makes the universal form identical in every particularthing of its kind.1 God changes an existing form into somethingdifferent. If the form is destroyed, the corresponding particularsdisappear with it. While the form is maintained, so are theparticulars, and vice versa. And there is nothing to prevent fromperishing every particle that goes to make the world, if so bethat no care is being taken for them from above.2 Then whenthe particles perish, the universe will perish too. Should theyanswer that God has a providence to this end only, that bykeeping all particulars from perishing, he may preserve theuniversal forms, they are caught admitting that some kind ofprovidence over particulars exists. For it is by such providenceover particulars that God, on their own showing, preserves theforms and the kinds of things.

Again there are others who say that God knows providenceover particulars to be good, but is not willing himself to exerciseit.3 Now there are two reasons for which one may be unwillingto do something. One is one's own indolence, and the other isthat the thing itself is beneath one. Who, then, would be so madas to charge God with indolence? especially considering thatthe two parents of indolence are love of pleasure, and fear! For

1 This argument is upon an Aristotelian basis. The forms have not anexistence on the same footing as and over against, the existence of par-ticulars, but exist in the particulars of which they are the forms. Neo-platonism had, in reconciling Plato and Aristotle, moved away from theinterpretation of Plato that gave the ideas a superior reality, independentof other orders of existence; so that Nemesius could count that the forceof this argument would be acknowledged by those to whom it wasaddressed.

2 This doctrine of the momently sustaining of the material universe by Godis the counterpart of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, and is Christian.But it comes in very easily as a sequel to the argument that particularsare dependent upon providence.

3 At this point Nemesius meets those who say that particular providence isleft to spiritual creatures (e.g., daimones) or (with Sallustius) to a dynamisof the gods other than direct divine action.


we are negligent of a duty when drawn aside by some pleasure,or brought to a halt by some fear. It is blasphemy even to thinkof either of these two alternatives as applying to God. Butsuppose that these objectors disclaim any imputation of negli-gence to God, but say that providence over particulars does notbeseem him. Suppose that they say that it is incongruous thatsuch blessedness should condescend to mean and trivial details,and be involved to some extent in profanation by the absurditiesthat spring from material circumstances and human caprice,and that, for that reason, God does not choose to exercise provi-dence over particulars. In making such assertions, they do notsee that they are investing God with two of the basest inclina-tions, an inclination to be scornful, and a propensity for beingeasily defiled! That is to say, either the Creator disdains rulingand managing particulars because he scorns them (a thingmost monstrous to affirm), or else he must, as these folk suggest,be shunning defilement. Now the rays of the sun naturallydraw up moisture of every kind, yet no one says that thesun (or even his rays) is sullied by shining on dunghills.4 Every-one acknowledges that both sun and rays remain uncontami-nated and pure. How, then, do they imagine that God cansuffer profanation from the things that are being done downhere?

These are not the doctrines of men who know what Godheadmeans. For the divine nature remains intact, incorruptible, un-contaminated, and above all mutability. For defilement, andeverything of that nature, comes about through mutability.

Would it not be utterly absurd if an adept at any art, andparticularly a physician,5 should take thought for the broad

4 The thought of the sun's rays undefiled by what they fall upon was acommonplace. Mr. H. Chadwick has noted, in his Origen^ Against Celsus,that Diogenes Laertius attributes it, as a primary observation, to Diogenesthe cynic. Beginning with Origen it was used continually by Christianwriters to prove the propriety of the incarnation. The reference which liesnearest to our passage, however, is in the Hymn to King Sun of the emperorJulian, who was the elder contemporary of Nemesius. Julian's involvedargument is that as the material sun takes no defilement from that onwhich its light falls, the intelligible sun, symbolizing divine beneficence,can, without loss of purity, condescend, through agency of the lower gods,to human affairs. Julian belongs to the later Neo-platonism that followsIamblichus. Nemesius may thus be answering the Neo-Platonists fromtheir own armoury.

5 God as a physician is another philosophic commonplace. Plutarch usesit to explain delays in divine retribution, as like the doctor waiting for theright time to use a remedy.


exercise of his art, but take no notice of details, or if he shouldleave even the slightest point outside the scope of his art and hisconcern. Such a one would know that the part contributes tothe whole. And is, then, God the Creator to be made out to haveless sense than any craftsman ?

COMMENTARY

67. Providence over particulars beseems God. It does not derogatefrom God's transcendence that he should exercise providenceover particulars.

In this section, Nemesius leaves the method of answeringspecific opponents for that of exhausting the possible groundsfor argument against providence over particulars. But it is easyto see that the argument with which he is really concerned isthat it is not congruent with divine transcendence. And here itis probable that the Neo-Platonists are the unnamed opponents.The Neo-Platonist principle is that of the upward aspiration ofthe soul, not that of the condescension of the higher to thelower. To Plotinus, for example, the sensible world is sub-stantially good, but with, and in spite of, its imperfections it re-mains a ladder by whose rungs the soul may climb to the reali-ties of the spiritual world. Accordingly Plotinus disapproved ofprayer for deliverance from calamities, since these should bebecoming indifferent to the soul that is attaining communionwith the world of intelligibles.

[M. 357-I7-36I.7-]TEXT

68. Well, then, let us say that it is not because God is un-willing, but because of its impossibility, that God abstains fromprovidence over particulars. But is it not plainly monstrous tospeak as if God lacked some power and so could not do whatwere right to be done ? It would be all the more so if one wenton to assert that the impossibility is double, and that neithercan God exercise providence in trifles, nor are such particulars,for their part, amenable to providence. We retort that it isGod's nature to provide; and that they admit it when they con-cede him general providence, especially when we observe that,while trifles must not, of course, take precedence of the broadissues, the power that works in the greater matters may seepdown for the preservation of the tiniest, and even of things that


to us are imperceptible.1 For all things hang upon the will ofGod and derive their permanence and safety therefrom. Now,that tiny and multitudinous particulars form a subject uponwhich providence may be exercised can be seen from thosemany kinds of living creature which are under government andyleadership. For bees and ants and most of the things that swarmtake their orders from certain leaders2 whom they follow obedi-ently. But the best way to recognize the suitability of particularsto be the subject of providence is to contemplate human society,since the administration and care of law-givers and magistratesis there plain to see. Now, how can something that thus lendsitself to being ruled by magistrates fail to lend itself to theprovidence of its Creator ?

Now it is no small token that providence should rule evenover particulars, that the recognition of such a providence isso widely distributed throughout our race as to be accounted agift of nature.3 For no sooner do we feel the pinch of necessitythan we fly promptly to thoughts of heaven and take refuge inprayers, as though nature led us instinctively to seek succourfrom God. Now nature would not lead us by instinct, like this,to anything unreal by comparison with herself. For, at a suddenonset of troubles and fears, involuntarily and without stoppingto think, we cry out to God: and wherever, in nature, some-thing always follows upon another something, it points firmly

1 The hierarchy of being, set out in ch. 1, is the background to this argu-ment. There it is shown that the lower exists for the sake of the higher,and that, for the sake of the higher, the lower is the object of God's care.Thus God's purpose for the higher may be said to "seep down" andembrace the lower.

2 The exemplary character of the republics of bees and ants was a com-monplace with both Christian and pagan writers. The latter see notheological bearing of the subject, but only a model of order. But Prov.6:6 ensured that Christian writers would see a divine lesson for man inthe insect republics. Theodoret, in his fifth sermon on providence, makesthe divine purpose in them the more obvious by insisting that the insectsare devoid of reason. Their order is therefore the direct work of God re-vealing what is his will for human society and the individuals of which itis composed. This view would not be readily accepted by any non-Christian, for whom the bees or ants would seem to be the producers oftheir own order. It fits the apologetic purpose of Nemesius to assume thelatter estimate of the insect republics, and to use them and human societyin parallel to prove that particulars are adapted to being governed.

3 Nemesius can count on the assent of his readers to the doctrine that thenatural order is rational. It carried the logical consequence that every-thing that can be established as being part of nature must be right andt r u e . . . : . - . .


to a conclusion that cannot be gainsaid.4 What is it, then, thatimpelled those whose opinion we have been refuting to take upsuch a line as they do ? The first reason, certainly, is that theyassume the destruction of the soul in company with the dis-solution of the body. The second reason is their inability toevolve a doctrine of providence over particulars. But that thesoul is not thus mortal and that man's destiny is not bounded bythis present life, is shown by the fact that the wisest of the Greeksbelieve in transmigration of souls,5 and that souls attain differ-ent grades, according to the life they have lived, and have theirdifferent punishments: that is to say, these Greek doctrines,though perhaps quite wrong in this or that other particular,square with the truth, nevertheless, when they confess that thesoul, after this present life is over, still exists, and rendersaccount for its transgressions.

If the doctrine of a providence over particulars exceeds ourcomprehension—and surely it does that, as it is written, "Howunsearchable are thy judgements, and thy ways past findingout"6—still we ought not, on that account, to deny that suchprovidence exists. For we cannot measure the waters of the sea,or count the grains of sand. But, for all that, no one wouldassert that the sea does not exist, or that the sand does notexist. So, too, no one would deny the existence of man or anyother animal because we cannot tell how many men or otheranimals there are. Go on to the number of particles of matter inthe world, and we cannot conceive how many they are. Andwhat is endless is incomprehensible. For while universals areoften comprehensible to reason, particulars are beyond themind's mastery. Now the individuality of any particular man istwofold. It consists first in his difference from any other man,and then in his difference from what he was in the past or willbe in the future. For any man undergoes great change andalteration in himself as day succeeds to day, in his state of lifeand occupation, in his wants and desires, and in every otherthing that follows from these things. For man is a living creaturealways in the act of becoming something fresh, and veryrapidly transformed to meet a need or to adapt himself to an4 Whenever a man is in extremis he thinks of God. If there is no particular

providence to answer him, the rationality of nature is overthrown.s Chiefly associated with the Pythagoreans, this doctrine was accepted by

Plato (see Phaedo, 15), to whom the phrase "the wisest of the Greeks"probably refers. In getting so near to the truth, Plato corroborates it,according to Nemesius.

* Rom. 11:33, but with the person changed from third to second.


occasion. It follows7 of necessity that a providence that will fititself to each particular must extend to embrace every differ-ence, intricacy, divergence, and convergence, in all the teemingdetails that exceed the comprehension of man's mind.

COMMENTARY

68. Particular providence is the response of infinite Mind to theneeds of creatures. In this section, Nemesius produces convergingarguments based upon his extreme terms, God and particulars.Starting from the moral attributes of God, he argues that Godis minded to provide for particulars. Observing particulars, hefinds that their number and complexity is such as man's mindcannot grapple with, but that they seem adapted to govern-ment from above, and to look for such government. The twoarguments meet in the wonder of divine Mind, omniscient andomnipotent, which can follow out, every instant, every ramifi-cation of particular being.

[M. 361.7-364.11.]

TEXT

69. It must be thus, if providence is to be suited to each indi-vidual and to each thing that he does; if, in short, the work ofprovidence is to prove wholly appropriate. The differences be-tween particulars are endless, and so, for sure, must be theresources of that providence that shall attend upon them all.Now if those resources are infinite, providence is beyond ourcomprehending. For that reason, our natural incapacity to com-prehend it must not lead us to put out of court divine care forevery creature. For, suppose that there is some situation thatseems to you not to be well ordered. The Creator knows that ithappens in that way for a very good reason. You, on the otherhand, know nothing of that reason, and declare that there is noreason about it. For we experience in regard to the works ofprovidence exactly what we experience in regard to otherthings that pass our comprehension. By a kind of guesswork,and that of a very vague order, we form an idea of the works ofprovidence. From things that are happening, we gain a kind ofconjectural picture of providence, and glimpses of its working.

7 The infinite demands of particular providence upon the power andwisdom of its Author prove it to be worthy of God.

4j8 NEMESIUS OF EMESA

At any rate, we speak of some things happening by divine per-mission. Now there are various forms of permission. And often-times God gives permission for a man, though righteous, to fallinto misfortunes, just so that he may reveal to others, as in thecase of Job,1 what virtue is latent in that man. Another exampleof divine permission is when God allows some monstrous crimeto be committed, so that, through the perpetration of an evidentoutrage, some great and admirable vindication of the right maybe achieved, as when, by means of the cross, man's salvationwas attained.2

Divine permission appears in a different form where God, ashe did in the case of Paul, allows a godly man to suffer griev-ously, only lest his clear conscience and the might that has beengranted him should cause him to fall into spiritual pride.3 Oneman is forsaken of God for a season so that another man may becorrected, and that others again, in witnessing that man's cor-rection, may be warned by it. It was thus in the case of Lazarusand Dives.4 For it is natural that we should be restrained by thesight of what happens to others, according to that admirableline from Menander,5 "The dread of heaven is fallen on us aswe behold what has befallen thee."

Again, one man is forsaken of God so as to promote the gloryof another, as in the case of the man who was born blind not1 Job i : 12 shows that Job's trials were by God's permission. Job 42:7-10

shows that, in the upshot, Job's virtues were made manifest to others. Thetheme of the book of Job, that the tragedy of Job is resolved when we "seebehind the scenes," is no doubt the main inspiration of Nemesius in hisargument.

2 This sentence diverges so far from the style of apologetic to those outsidethe Church, as to suggest that Nemesius may have gathered this set ofscriptural "intimations" of the beneficent working of providence for asermon, on trust in providence, to be preached to the faithful. If this is so,the fact that there has not been adequate rewording of the passage maybe regarded as another sign that the work never received final revision.

3 II Cor. 12:7-10. Only those with a clear and Christian knowledge of thepassage could be expected to appreciate the force of this example.

4 The reference is to the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31.The first reason, Nemesius argues, for which Lazarus was allowed tosuffer as he did, was that Dives might be roused to works of charity. Thesecond reason is that, Dives dying uncorrected, the whole story should berevealed by Christ in his preaching, and that, by this means, innumerablehearers of the Gospel might receive warning.

5 Grotius prints this sentence in his edition of the fragments of Menanderwithout naming his source, but it is almost certain that his source was thispassage of Nemesius, and that the play to which the sentence belongedhas otherwise perished. The fragment would appear to be part of thewords of the chorus to one of the dramatis personae in a tragedy.


through any fault of his or of his parents, but for the glory of theSon of man.6

Once more, one man is permitted to suffer that so he mayarouse the zeal of another; that is to say that as the glory of thesufferer shines forth the brighter by his suffering, the rest cometo think less of suffering as deterrent, in view of the hope offuture glory, and their longing for those benefits that theyexpect. This is the case with the Christian martyrs,7 as withthose who have sacrificed themselves for their country, theirpeople, their liege-lords, their children, or their faith.

Now if anyone should think it out of all reason that a godlyman should suffer grievously so that someone else should beput right, let him reflect that this life is a contest8 and a striving-ground for virtue. The victors' chaplets are splendid in exactproportion, therefore, to the pains with which they are won.That is why Paul was allowed to fall into countless afflictions;to the end, that is, that the crown of victory which he shouldbear off might be the greater, or rather, that it might be un-surpassable.

Well then, we conclude that the works of providence are welland fittingly done.

^ The incident of the man born blind is related in John 9:1-38. The purposeof providence in permitting the man's congenital blindness is discussed inverses 3 and 4.

7 So highly was martyrdom esteemed in the Church that in ecclesiasticalliterature it is assumed as self-evident that it is a supreme act of divinegrace to call a disciple to lay down his life in fidelity to Christ. The"passions" or "acts" of the martyrs, in their character of the mostpopular form of Christian literature, from the fourth century on, showthat this question of the suffering of martyrs severs the Christian outlookfrom that of outside society most acutely. No one inside the Churchthought that there was need to explain why God permitted the perse-cutors to inflict suffering on the martyrs. Outside the Church, it appearedequally obvious that people who suffered as the martyrs did, must havefallen under the vengeance of heaven. Therefore Origen, in AgainstCelsus, VIII. 4, answers his pagan opponent by saying that the demonsinstigate persecution out of hatred towards God, and that God permitstheir success, only to make it work their undoing. That Nemesius shouldlikewise treat the sufferings of the Christian martyrs as something thatneeded explaining, and that he should compare them with sacrificialpatriotism, parenthood, and the like, show that he has now rememberedthe needs of apologetic.

8 For Paul's many sufferings and trials, see II Cor. 11:23-30. For his attain-ment of the crown, II Tim. 4:7-8. The combination of these two passagesgives Nemesius a revelation of the working of providence in the life of anindividual, upon which he can ground his conclusion.

29—cj.


COMMENTARY

69. Intimations of the working of particular providence. Section 68has shown that if there is providence over particulars, its work*ing must be so intricate that human minds cannot possibly over-take it. That being so, Nemesius now urges the impropriety ofany human judgement passed upon incidents and situations inlife regarded as resulting from the work (or negligence) ofprovidence. That, however, is not to say that man's mind shouldbe paralysed by the knowledge that the workings of providencesurpass comprehension. Intimations of the goodness and wis-dom of dispositions that at first appear cruel and senseless maysometimes come to us, and this should encourage us to thinkthat goodness and wisdom run through every disposition ofevents, in all the world. This course is made easier if we regardwhat troubles us as permitted by God, rather than initiated byhim. The later part of the section shows that while, for apolo-getic reasons, Nemesius suggests that intimations of the workingof providence might be the fruit of any man's natural cogita-tions, his examples are all taken from Scripture, or inspired byChristian experience. These intimations, therefore, are reallypartial revelations. It would only, therefore, be as his readerbegan to regard Scripture as divine revelation that he would bewilling or able to accept Nemesius' huge final generalization,drawn from a handful of particular cases, and would put histrust in providence.

[M. 364.11-368.10.]TEXT

70. Now, that God arranges all things well and fittingly andin the sole way admissible, would be seen most surely by anyonewho will view the matter in relation to two universally ac-knowledged facts.1 God is good, and God alone is wise. Then,since he is good, he is of course a God of providence. Likewise,in view of the fact that he is wise, his care for every creature isof the wisest and best. For if he neglected providence he wouldnot be good, while if he exercised it, but not well, he would notbe wise. Anyone, therefore, who views providence in relation to

1 The Greek of this sentence suggests comparison of the theological truthsof God's goodness and wisdom to two distant landmarks which help anobserver to watch, without being confused, the movement of events in theforeground.


these two points will surely not pass adverse judgement on theworks of providence, nor will he, for lack of due examination ofthe question, blaspheme against them. He will, on the con-trary, accept all of them in good part, admire them all, and beconvinced that they are all done well and fittingly, in spite ofthe fact that the man in the street supposes them inequitable.2

So, do not let us bring down upon our heads the reproach ofbeing personally and grossly foolish, in addition to the guilt ofblasphemy.

Any statement of ours that all things fall out well must not—and this we must claim to be obvious—be supposed to coverhuman perversities, or anything that lies within our capacitiesand that we do. It refers only to the works of providence whichare not within the scope of our action.

Well, then, how is it that men of God have died in bitterpains and been slaughtered when innocent of all offence ? If,that is to say, we can presume that they were the victims ofinjustice, why did not just providence prevent their murder?For if their sufferings were well-merited, the men that slewthem are surely guiltless. To such an argument, our reply is thatthe murderer always commits a wrong by his murder. A manwho is murdered may deserve his fate or it may, for otherreasons, be expedient for him to die. If he had committedcrimes, monstrous, but all unknown to us, then he would havedeserved his fate. It would, on the other hand, be a case wherehis death was expedient, if providence knew beforehand ofsome evil deed that he would commit, and that it would be bestthat his life should come to an end before the fatal situationarrived. (This may have been the case with Socrates, or withGod's holy ones.)3 But the man who did the deed committedthe crime of murder. For he was not aware of this expediency,

2 This sentence compares strikingly with a short letter written by GregoryNazianzen in his last days, in which he says that he can bear his sufferingscheerfully because he is persuaded "that nothing that happens to us fromthe divine Reason is without good reason, even though it appears other-wise to us." "Reason," here, is Logos, the "Word" of John 1:1, who is inthe world as providence and was its Creator. If our Nemesius is the sameas Gregory's friend, both men ended their lives with the same mind aboutprovidence.

3 We have here the notion that God might foresee that a good man, ifallowed to live on, would meet a situation in which his perseverancewould break down, and therefore permit the man to be slain by humanagency before that situation was reached, while nevertheless bringing theagents of death to judgement. This notion is not Hellenic, and hardly isChristian. It appears in, and probably was inspired by, Wisdom 4:10, 11,


nor had he licence to do the deed, but he acted deliberately forthe sake of gain and because he was a robber.

For what we do is our responsibility, but what happens to usis not, as, for example, if we were to be murdered. Death is inno sense an evil, were it not for sin, as may be plainly seen in thedeaths of godly men. The sinner, on the other hand, finds deathan evil, even though death comes to him in his bed, eventhough it be quick and painless, because the shroud of sin,which he procures, is evil. But to return to the point that themurderer commits a wrong by his murder. It is true that wherehis victim was deserving of death, a murderer is a self-appointedexecutioner. But where it was expedient for the victim that heshould die, the murderer chooses the part of an assassin and anoutlaw. The same arguments apply to those who, in war,butcher their opponents or load them with chains, or, whenthey have made them prisoners, use them with all harshness.They apply equally to those who covet and seize other men'sgoods. For it may very well be that, so far as concerns thepeople deprived of their possessions, they may be all the betterfor being relieved of them. Nevertheless, the people whocoveted their possessions thereby committed a wrong. Forwhen they committed the theft, they did so out of covetousness,and not with any thought of what might be expedient for theirvictims.

COMMENTARY

70. The working of providence does not remove marts moral re-sponsibility. The actions of providence and the actions of men sofit together that the good will of God is done, but men bear the

which Cyprian understands in the sense that God's conditional fore-knowledge is the reason that he permits his holy ones to suffer deathprematurely. It is a notion at home in Pharisaism, where law-keeping andlaw-breaking are issues of life and death. "God's holy ones," in ourpassage, is a probable reference to the passage in Wisdom. More surpris-ing is the application of the notion to Socrates. This might have suggesteditself to the mind of a Hellenized Jew. Or Nemesius might have arrivedat the idea himself. Theodoret, a generation later and against the samesocial background, in his Cure of pagan sickness, vm, argues that Socrateshas no right to be ranked with the Christian martyrs. Clearly there was atendency for liberal fifth-century opinion so to rank him. And thattendency seems here to sway Nemesius himself, unless we suppose him tobe making conscious concession to outside opinion. Perhaps this bracket-ing of Socrates with "God's holy ones" is indication that Nemesius, as aconvert late in life, did not react automatically, like Theodoret, inAccordance with ecclesiastical sentiment.


guilt of the sinful will with which they act. In this section,Nemesius begins a new movement in his argument, which isleft incomplete when the book comes to an end with the end ofthe section. He has dealt hitherto with scepticism regarding thefact of providence, based on the infinite multiplicity of par-ticulars. But a greater source of complication still is the variedmoral initiative of the free rational creatures. The aim of thissection is to extend the former argument, and show that, on thebasis of a true theology, belief in providence should not cloudour recognition of man's moral responsibility. This is argued byconsideration of evils which men are permitted to inflict on oneanother, and their effect upon the true welfare of the sufferer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

TEXT. The Munich edition of 1848-1860 in two volumes, the firstedited by W. C. Reischl, and the second by J. Rupp.

The edition of Dom Touttee, 1720, is reprinted in Migne,Patrologia Graeca, torn. xxxm. 331-1180.

FOR GYRIL'S LIFE, the article Cyrillus (2) by Venables, in theDictionary of Christian Biography (W. Smith and H. Wace, 1877)gives the sources. There is but one monograph, J . Mader, Derheilig Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem, in seinem Leben und seinenSchriften, Einsiedeln, 1891.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. (Prebaptismal Lectures, and the five Mysta-gogic Lectures doubtfully Cyril's.)

Vol. 11 of the Library of the Fathers, Oxford, 1838. (Translation byR. W. Church.)

Vol. VII of Nicene and Post Nicene Christian Fathers, 1893 (revision byE. H. Gifford).

With the Greek text, by H. de Romestin, London, 1887.FOR JERUSALEM, ITS TOPOGRAPHY AND BUILDINGS, the best WOrk is

P. Vincent and F. M. Abel, Jerusalem.FOR PILGRIMAGES, the collection Itinera Hierosolymitana (Saeculi

iv-viii), edited by P. Geyer in the Corpus Scriptorum Eccle-siasticorum Latinorum (torn, xxxix. Vienna, 1898). The trans-lation into English of the second of these Itinera by M. L.McClure and C. L. Feltoe is published in the Translations ofChristian Literature (Series iii, Liturgical Texts) by the Societyfor Promoting Christian Knowledge, under the title ThePilgrimage of Etheria (London, 1919), and has useful introduc-tion and notes.

FOR THE GENERAL BACKGROUND, H. M. Gwatkin, Studies qfArianism,Cambridge, 1882, remains more useful for this purpose thanany other work in English.

454

BIBLIOGRAPHY 455

NEMESIUS OF EMESA

TEXT. The Halle edition of 1802, edited by G. F. Matthaei andpublished by J. J. Gebauer is reprinted in Migne PatrologiaGraeca, torn. LX. 503-818.

The Oxford edition of 1671, edited by John Fell and publishedby the University Press is reprinted in Gallandi, BibliothecaPatrum (1765-81), torn. vii. 351-426.

FOR THE GENERAL BAGKGROUND may be recommended:Culture, W. W.Jaeger, Paideia (3 vols.), Oxford, 1945.Philosophy, Article "Poseidonios von Apameia" by K. Reinhardt

in Pauly-Wissowa, torn, xxn (i).Doctrine, Article "Antiochene Theology" by J. H. Srawley in

Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, torn. 1.Medicine, s.v. Galen, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

STUDIES. Those cited in the Introduction and notes, together with:K. Burkhard, "Johannes von Damaskus Ausziige aus Nemesios"

in Wiener Eranos zur 50. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schul-mdnner in Graz, 1909. A Holder, Vienna, 1909.

A. Ferro, "La dottrina dell5 anima di Nemesio di Emesa," inRicherche religiose^ Rome, 1925, torn. 1. 227-238. K. Gronau,Poseidonius u.d. judisch-christliche Genesis-exegese, Berlin, 1914.

F. Lammert, "Zur Lehre von den Grundeigenschaften beiNemesios" in Hermes, Wiesbaden, 1953, torn, LXXXI. 488-491.

Indexes

GENERAL INDEX

Readers are referred to the respective Introductions for information on Cyril,bishop of Jerusalem (349-386), and Nemesius, bishop of Emesa (c. 400), notincluded by name in the index.Page numbers in italics refer to footnotes only. The others are inclusive of textand footnotes.

Aaron, 55, 85-6, 93, 186Abammon (Egyptian priest), 402-3Abraham, 75, 127, 141, 175, 33#Acacius (bishop of Gaesarea, J366), 21,

23-7Adam, 80, 84, 105, 134, 164, 166, 184,

237, 245, 251Aelia, see JerusalemAetheria (pilgrim), 29—30, 40, 51-2,

<%-5, 74, ™4Aetius (Stoic), 324Alexander (bishop of Aelia, t 25o), 60,

131Alexandria, 22, 57, 60, 100, 116, 117,

137, 152, 171, 208, 235, 262, 299, 303,33i, 358-9, 365, 381, 385, 414.

Ammonius Saccas, 227, 246, 261, 262,295-6, 2gg

"Anastasis" (Holy Sepulchre), 41, 43,45> 47~54> 74,104, *39> *9*-

Anatomy, 275, 331-7, 345, 3&4, 365>373, 380.

Anaxagoras (philosopher), 5/5,572, 429Anaxarchus (philosopher), 384Anaximines (philosopher), 318Angels, 75, 77, 79, 84, 86-7, 90, 97,

106, 108, 127, 129-30, 144, 172,228, 239, 245, 420.

Anger, 274, 346, 348-9, 361-2, 385,390-2

Anthropology, 211-4, 216-8, 223 seqq.Antichrist, 27, 107, 151, 153-63, 167,

197-829* C.J.

Antioch (-enes), 27-8, 62, 171, 210,215, 226, 235, 237, 281, 300, 303,35&

"Apathy", 359,390Apocalypse, 119, 158,160Apocrypha, 116, 118, 174Apollinarius (-ians), 206, 210, 224,

226-7, 246, 284, 286, 293, 316, 5/7,320

Aramaic, 35, 36, 178, 190Aretology, 186, 210, 211, 215, 236, 350,

352-3, 3^4, 4i 1-2, 4i4> 423. 449Aristotle (-elians), 225-7, 233, 258,

259-61, 262, 266, 269, 275-80, 282,301, 302, 305-7, 310-1, 313, 315-6,.325> 332, 337-8, 339, 346-7, 348,35O> 354, 355, 356-8, 364, 369, 372,373, 374, 376-7, 3^1, 3^7, 39O, 397>411, 412-3, 414, 417, 425, 429, 431,435-7-

Arius (-ians), 20-3, 28-9, 46-7, 61-2,103, 107, 126, 129-130, 134, 142, 155,165, 169, 205, 281, 285-6, 413

Armenia, 34, 153, 178Arteries, i n , 366-9, 374, 376-7Arts, 243, 246, 290, 338, 372, 395, 414,

417Ascension, 106-7Ascetic (-ism), 33, 38, 47, 60, 93, 112,

190, 211, 236, 338, 352,353, 354,359,390, 4i9-

Astrology, 109, 119, 213, 397~8>400-3

458 INDEXES

Athanasius, St., 21-4, 47,68,107-8, 116,118, 152, 168, 381

Athens, 225, 257, 264,345~6> 429Augustine, St., #1,215,351,420,422,

426"Autexousia", 81, 82, 109-110, 213,

215, 370, 374, 391 , 395, 397-402,404, 410-23, 426, 453

Baptism, 31, 33, 52, 64-6, 69, 75-9,89-98, 108, 115-6, 169, 173, 186,191,244

Baptistry, 52, 54, 74Barcochab, 58-9, 107Basil, St., 28, i68s 210, 243, 254, 281,

410Basilicas, 21,30, 43, 48-50.5U 104,193,

250Bittir, 58Blood, i n , 264, 305, 360-1, 364-5,

3®$, 368, 379-80.Body, 110-5, 164, 179-86, 210, 228,

230, 238, 240, 244, 262-3, 265-9,272-5, 278-80, 282 y 287, 295, 300,3O5-9, 3 " , 352, 354, 3^5, 380, 397,418, 422, 425

Bordeaux pilgrim, 52, 56, t3g, 159Brain, 213, 319, 321, 332-3, 337-8,

341-3,347, 367, 37i, 373-4,378.Caesarea (Palestine), 19-21, 28, 44,

59-61, 124, *7*> *96Caesarius of Nazianzus, 207-8, 211Calendar (Church), 30, 195, 206"Canonici", 67, 71Catechesis, 30-43, 61, 68, 72, 81, 85Catholic church, 92, 172, 178-9, 186-8Chance, 355, 381, 395-6, 410, 437,

438-9> 440Chastity, 112-3, 122, 404Choice, 365, 384-5, 389, 391-4, 403-6,

414-5, 419-21, 422, 423Chrism, 40, 75, 175, 191Christology, 93, 102-7, 129, 131-47,

165-6, 210, 226-7, 235, 237, 282, 284,286, 300, 301-4

Chrysippus (physician), 376Chrysippus (Stoic), 265, 267, 294, 398,

404, 434City, see "Polis"Cleanthes, 265-7Concupiscence, 83-4, n o , 119, 273-4,

346, 348-52, 385, 390, 392, 404Confession, see "Exomologesis"Constantine, emperor, 19-22, 43-7, 52,

go, 150, 152, 159, 171, 181, 194,196-7

Constantius, emperor, 21-4, 26-7, 38,104, 113, 150, 152, 163, 181, 193-9

Contemplation, 213, 236, 255, 276-7,297, 352, 354-9, 4 J8-9

Conversion, 63, 79, 83, 210, 214Cosmology, 145, 316Creation, 82, 92, 128, 145, 211, 214,

229, 232-40, 253, 255, 282-5, 3i6-7>320, 427-8, 435

Creationism, 282, 283-4, 34$Creed, 31, 40-4, 51, 62, 95, 100, 105,

124, 148, 186, 196Critias (philosopher), 257, 260Cronius (Pythagorean), 288Cross in sky, 163,197Cross, sign of, 106, 197Cross, true, 51, 104, 139, 181, 194

Damascene, John, 126, 215-7, 245, 431Daniel, 115, 122, 177, 189, 254, 424David, 55, 87-8, 105, 134, 159, 175-6,

187, 285Death, 96, 198, 226, 244, 267, 270, 375Deities, 131, 173, 229, 247, 270, 401-3,

409,412,442Deliberation, 279, 338, 392-7,411,414,

418Demetrius of Phalerum, 117Democritus (philosopher), 257, 260,

369, 435Demons, 33, 71, 79, 82, 106, 124, 139-

40, 228, 449Descent to Hades, 105, 107, 133Destiny, see FateDevil (Satan), 76, 81-4, 95-6, 98, n o ,

119, 122, 155, 158, 245Dicaearchus (Aristotelian), 259, 269Dionysius, tyrant, 384Discursive thought, 126, 298, 299, 323,

33^34<>y 341,343-5,374Dogmas, 42-3, 99-120, 121, 186, 209,

304Doxography, 218, 226, 260, 338, 345Dreams, 255, 278, 297, 338, 344, 368,

427Drusilla, 204Dualism, 101, 111, 184, 231, 320, 356,

407, 416"Dynameis", 231-2, 362, 364, 367', 374,

377, 379, 420

Easter, 30, 32, 54,153,182, 191"Ecpurosis", 408, 409Egypt (-ians), 22, 107, 116, 117, 135,

137, 139, 153, 171, *&> 224, 258, 353,365, 402, 423

Eldad and Medad, 174Eleazar bar Charsom, 58Elements, 92, 127,212-3, 228,232,240-

1,271, 272, 279,297, 305, 307-20, 322

Elijah, 93, 172, 176, 181, 408, 416Elisha, 106, 172, 176, 181Embryology, 331, 368-70, 379Emesa, 203-6Empedocles, 308"Energeia", 349, 355, 357-8Enoch, 93, 175,408"Entelechy", 275-8Epicurus (-cans), 243, 257,258,264,325,

326-7, 33i, 339, 35°> 353, 354-6, 435Epistemology, 270, 277, 326, 327, 338,

343, 359, 375Erasistratus (physician), 365,500,570Eschatology, see AntichristEternal life, see ImmortalityEthics, 31, 210, 214-6, 229, 252, 274,

275, 305, 37O> 389> 397, 399, 4°°Eunomius (-ians), 206, 210, 281-6, 301,

4 J3Euripides (dramatist), 436Eusebius (bishop of Emesa, |359)» 205Eusebius (bishop of Gaesarea, f339)>

20, 43-51, 54, 55-7, 59-61, 104, 107,119,124, *6o, 165, 169,171, 195-6, 288

Eustathius (Gonstantinopolitan pres-byter), 47

Euzoius (bishop of Caesarea, 366-79),28,45

Excrements, i n , 240, 363, 367, 373,381

Exegesis, 84, 86, 94, 114, 134, 136, 146,161-2, 2io, 358

"Exomologesis", 78, 80, 87-9, 94Exorcism, 33, 51, 70-1, 73, 78, 80

Faculties, 213, 228, 271, 301, 319-24,357, 362, 371, 378, 396, 420, 421-2

Faith, 75-8, 95, 109, 120-4, 140, 189,238, 307

Fall, the, 84-6, 228, 1237, 239-40, 245,253, 352, 420

Fasts, 32, 36, 182Fatalism, 81, 109, 211, 213, 397, 415Fate, 214, 288, 397-407, 410Fear, 274, 550, 351, 360Feeling, see Pain or TouchForeknowledge, see FutureForgiveness, 75, 76, 86-9, 163, 244-6,

248, 418"Form", 188, 275, 276-8, 279, 281,

287-9, 292, 320, 442Fortune, see ChanceForty-days (Lent), 30, 32-7, 40,68, 96,

99Free-will, see "Autexousia"Future, knowledge of, 105, 116, 119,

I3i> 135-7, i& i5i> 173, 197, 255,297» 338, 401, 4°6» 409, 427, 43°>431, 440, 451.

INDEXES 459Galen, 206-7, 210-1, 213, 218, 233,

235, 241, 243, 250, 269, 271, 272,273-5, 291-3,^5, 307, 312-3,3/7^9,320, 321-3, 324-6, 327-9, 331, 332-3,335, 337-8,339,341, 342,343-4, 345,347, 349, 350, 361-2, 365, 566^ ,369-70, 57'-3, 374, 376-7, 378, 3*/,382, 398, 425

Gelasius (bishop of Caesarea, f395), 19,27-8, 45, 196

"Genesis" (becoming), 133, 155, 179,184, 282, 354, 356, 358, 417, 428, 446

Genesis, Commentaries on, 231-2, 235,238-9, 240, 243, 250-1, 303, 3^6-7,338-9

Godhead, 71, 75, 99-102, 108, 120,126-31, 135, 162, 164, 180, 189, 229,301, 357, 405, 408, 410, 432, 435,

"Golden age", 239, 253Golgotha, 21, 46-9,50, 52, 59, 78, 104,

107, 123, 75/, 139,159, 170,194, 195Gospels, 119, 759, 193, 197Greeks, see PagansGrief, see PainGregory Nazianzen, St., 207-10, 245,

Gregory Nyssen, St., 28-9, 70, 79,127, 144, 203, 210, 216-20, 225, 231,245, 250, 281, 283-4, 421

Habit, 412, 421-2Hadrian, emperor, 45, 57-8, 61, 217Hair, 379, 381Hands, 290, 334, 372Harmony, 234, 259, 269, 274Hearing, i n , 322, 335-6, 358Heart, i n , 347, 348-9, 360-1, 363,

366-7, 374, 376-7Heaven, 76, 92, 101, 127-8, 143, 146,

149, 164,172,255,286,315Helena, St., 104"Hemisphere", 50-1Heraclius (Jerusalem presbyter), 21 ,

23-4Herachtus (philosopher), 318, 345, 435Heresies, 38, 69, 71, 99, 101, 104, 707,

120, 151Hipparchus (astronomer), 318, 324Hippasus (Pythagorean), 318Hippocrates, 212-3, 271, 272, 305, 312,

317-8, 320, 361, 364, 368-9Hippocratic oath, 207-8Holy Land (and Places), 20, 23-30,

44-7, 52, 58-60, 123, 139, 195Holy Sepulchre, see "Anastasis"Holy Spirit, 40, 55, 65, 68, 76, 90-2,

97, 705, 107-8, 112, 129-30, 144,167-77,775, 192,245,284

460 INDEXES

"Homoousion", 61,102, 107, 199Humours, four, 213, 241, 271, 305-6,. 337, 360-*> 363-4, 379"Hyle", 263, 276-8, 3O7~8, 316-20, 406 Joshua, 174-5

Tordan, 46, 92-4, 96, 139Joseph, 384Josephus, 55, 117

Iamblichus (Neo-Platonist), 288, 289,293, 4°2

Ibycus (poet), 424-5, 437"Ideas" (Platonic), 269, 296,340, 341,

343, 432, 433> 442Imagination, 83, 122, 319-21, 323-4,„ 34h347Immensity, see HeavenImmortality, 71, 109-10, 179, 184,

189-90, 213, 238, 240, 246, 287, 292,408, 439, 44i

Impulse, 213,290,323,346-8, 368, 371,37*> 374, 383, 398

Inanimates, 228, 232, 249, 263, 272,286-7

Incarnation, 103-7, J35, *47> 148, 155,213-4, 226, 255, 300-4, 424, 443

Incorporeal beings, 228, 236, 245, 247,248, 266-8

Incorruption, 109, 141, 183, 198, 255,3O1, 435

India (-ians), 153, 171, 179Individuality, 213,228, 230, 258, 287-9,

291,336, 429-31, 435, 446Instinct, 229, 234, 290, 375, 445Instrument (body an), 212, 225-6,

270, 274, 290-3, 307, 319, 323, 335Intellect, 213, 319-20, 338, 341-4InteUigibles, see World, noeticIntuition, 126, 299,340, 343,387Involuntary, the, 347, 368, 371, 389-9Ircnaeus, St., 46, 111, 116, 131, 151,

157-8, 160, 245Irrational, the, 213, 228, 232, 234, 236,

251, 253, 271, 272, 277, 282, 287-92,293, 32°, 324, 346> 347~5°> 362, 365,368

James, the Lord's brother, 55-6, 114,169

Jerome, St., 21, 23, 28, 42-3, 45, 47,63, 86, 149, 164, 205, 206, 210, 433

Jerusalem, 19-30, 32-5, 40, 43-7, 51,54~63, 94, 97, *°o» 104-3, 107, ii2,n6t 118-9,124, 131, 134,148,153,160,169-70,171,192, 193-9, 216

Jews, 27, 38, 55-9, 71, 92, 97, 99, 106,j /p , 120, 135-8,154, 156-9, 163,182,187, 228, 238,247,248,251, 316,338,

y 423-4> 452John Baptist, 93-4, 97, 105, 139, 149,

205-6John (bishop of Jerusalem, t4i7)» 21,

29, 39-43, 5i, fo #7, 70, 86, 97

Judaism, see JewsJudgement, see Second ComingJulian, emperor, 27, 138, 159, 198, 208,

*43> 443Justice, 180, 244, 249, 362, 402, 425,

427,448,4s1

Knowledge, see Epistemology

Latin pilgrims, 41Lazarus of Bethany, 85, 181Lazarus (beggar), 448Lections, 31, 35, 37, 43, 67, 77, 81, 89,

98, 120-1, 126, 140, 147, 167, 178Lecturing, 34-43, 5^54, 6 i~3, f>4> 67»

173"Legio X", 55-6, 58-9Lent, see Forty-days"Link-theory", 212, 229-35, 249-50,

254, 291, 309, 315, 445Liturgy, 64, 137, 191Liver (and see Blood), 348, 367, 374,

377Locality (-ization), 298-300, 320, 329,

335, 34Z> 342, 367"Logos", see Word of GodLust, see Concupiscence

Macarius (bishop of Jerusalem, t333),21, 45, 62

Macedonians, 168Madaba, 52-4Magnentius (usurper), 24, 152,193,198Magnet, 232Mani (-chees), 37, IOI, 111, 119, 150,

187, 259-60, 286-7, 289Marcellus (bishop of Ancyra, 314-

336), 107, 148, 165Marcion (-ites), 31, 84, ioot 116, 168-9,

187Marriage, 90, 113, 121, 242, 352Martyr (-dom), 95, 106, 160-2, 188-9,

205, 449"Martyry" (basilica), 21-2, 33, 40-1,

43-54, 56, 64, 73> 104, 161, igit 195,196

Materialism, 272Matter, see "Hyle"Maximus (bishop of Jerusalem, f349),

21-4, 37-8, 62, 152, 169Medicine, 206-8, 210, 211-2, 217-8,

241, 242, 253, 271-2, 273-5, 305, 3i7>324,341-2, 345, 35i, 361, 37o, 374

Meletius monachus, 217

Melito (bishop of Sardis, 1[iQo)9 59,105, 182

Memory, 124, 213, 269, 319-20, 328-9,339-42, 346

Menander (dramatist), 436, 448Metabolism, 40"Metriopathy", 114, 359, 390Microcosm, 252, 254Mind, 126, 131, 224,225, 226, 234, 293,

296, 34O» 342-6, 352, 358, 402, 414,429, 437, 447

Modalism, 103, 155Monachism, see Ascetics"Monticulus Calvariae", 51-2,104Moses, 46, 55, 85-6, 93, 115, 131, 134-

6, 138, 166, 173-5, 186, 235, 239,282, 284, 316

Motion, 279-80Muscle, i n , 334, 336, 372-6Mutability, 417-21"Mystagogic" lectures, 39, 175, 191-2

Names of Christ, 74, 131-8Narcissus (bishop of Aelia, f2i5), 54,

60-1, 182Nathan, 87-8Nature, 235, 249, 252, 309, 311, 322,

332, 346, 348-9> 359, 365, 373, 376,398-9,408, 410, 412, 414, 436-7, 445

Nebuchadnozor, 88-9Necessity (Anagke), 404, 405, 406,

407-8, 410, 416, 417Neediness of man, 104, 115, 184, 239-

44, 249Neo-Platonism, 206, 225, 227, 256, 258)

261, 262, 271, 277, 280, 285, 286, 293,295, 296, 297, 299, 308, 3™, 321,323-4, 327, 33i, 338, 339, 354, 355,356, 358, 402-3, 414, 4*6-7, 44^-3,444

Nerves, 319, 323, 325, 332~3> 335-7,367, 37J~4

Nicocreon (tyrant), 384Noah, 85, 93, 175Number, 258, 266, 280-1, 285Numenius (Pythagorean), 262, 285,

288, 295, 338, 347Nutrition, H I , 114, 228, 232, 238-42

249, 264, 287, 346, 352, 362-5, 379Olives, Mount of, 88, 107, 131, 139,

195Origen (-ism), 28, 60, 62, 86, 88, 98,

100-1, 107-10, 124, 146-7, 149, 162-4,168, 184, 206, 2io, 229, 231-2, 235,236* 238-9, 240, 243, 245, 250, 254,282, 303, 316, 338, 339, 343, 384-5,390, 408-9, 412, 417, 422, 428, 433,443,449

INDEXES 461

Pagans (-ism), 38, 71, 91, 99, 114,120, 156, 159, 179, 196, 206, 213-4,229, 239, 247, 255, 301, 424, 426

Pain, 212-3, 242, 297, 312, 317-8, 335,348, 350-4, 355, 357, 359-60, 375,383, 386-7, 390

Palestine, see Holy LandPanaetius (Stoic), 212, 346, 362"Panegyric on Man", 213, 254-7Paradise, 75, 78, 80, 84, 127, 240,

242Passions, 130, 244, 246, 253, 287, 301,

323, 348-51, 374, 380, 386, 390,399,405, 417, 435

Paul, St., 112, 120, 140, 142, 148, 154,158, 166-7, 183, 187-90, 236, 254,293, 448-9

Paul of Samosata, 102, 134, 141Pelagianism, 215-6, 413, 421, 422-3Pella, 55-6Pentecost, 169, 175, 178Perception, 233, 276, 287, 300, 306,

320-4, 327, 328-37, 371, 374Persia (-ians), 90, 140, 151, 152, 171,

179,^5Peter, St., 89, 91-2, 94, 140, 175, 183,

187Philo Judaeus, 117, 149, 235, 238, 250,

338-9Philopator (Stoic), 398-9"Photizomenoi", 33-4, 38-41, 61,

64-8, 76-7,78,84,100,102,120,124-5,135,140, 142,148, 182, 186, 190

Pilgrimage, 28-9, 46, 57, 60-1, 107,194, 196

Plants, 84, 228, 232-4, 287-8Plato (-nism), 102,109,212, 214, 225-7,

231, 238, 243, 258, 259, 263-4, 265,268-70, 271, 282, 287-9, 292, 295-6,298, 313-6, 322, 325, 339, 34i, 343,35O, 354, 356,36*> 364, 381, 387,3904O5-7, 409-10, 432-3, 434, 4tf

Pleasure, 213, 256, 348, 350, 352-60,383, 386, 39O

Plotinus (Neo-Platonist), 224, 226-7,261, 267, 288, 293, 295, 297-9, 331,356, 444

Plutarch (Ps. Plutarch), 258-9, 260-1,293, 32i, 323, 39$, 425> 443

"Polis", 186, 243-4, 361, 445Porphyry (Neo-Platonist), 224, 268,

288, 289, 296,297,299, 301, 304, 327,331,3^-3,359,402

Porticos, 48Posidonius (Stoic), 212, 230, 231-2,

235,239, 242, 243-4, 250-1, 254, 256,293, 3io, 313, 316,318, 327, 346,362,372, 374,379,381, 382, 428

Potentiality, 225, 239, 275, 276-7

462 INDEXES

Prayer, 256, 397, 400-3, 407, 426-7,445 n

Preexistence, 135, 137, 269-70, 282,303, 339, 343

"Prescription, fourfold", 311Prophecy, see FutureProvidence, 211, 213-5, 243, 244, 245,

283-5, 335, 365> 3fo> 4O4-5> 406,407, 416-7, 423-53

"Psychic spirit", 321, 326,367,373, 374,376

Ptolemy Philadelphus, 117Pythagoras (-eans), 258, .259, 264, 269,

280-1, 285-6, 338Qualities, 109, 240, 266-7, 268, 270,

273, 275, 279, 281, 308, 314, 318,33°, 336

"Quintana", 48

Reason (rationality), 103, 228, 234,236, 252-3, 274,277, 287, 290, 344-8,361-2,368, 372, 374,399, 404,4I7~9>45i

Redemption, 86-92, 94-5, 105, 123,149-50, 192, 198, 226, 237, 245, 289,448

Relics, 104, 181-2Repentance, 77, 82, 85, 87-9, 112, 115,

186, 244-5, 4*8Reproduction (procreation), 111, 141,

228, 265, 283-4, 3& 352, 362, 368-70, 428, 433

Respiration, i n , 346, 362, 371, 375"8

Resurrection, 40, 44, 46, 96, 104, 106,115, 178-85, 248, 409-10

Rhetoric, 256-7, 388, 394, 397Rome, 75, 160, 181, 299,303

Sallustius, 437Salvation, 71, 75-6, 85-6, 89, 95, ior,

104,108, 120,150, 192, 449Samaritans, 71, 119, 120, 179, 181Samuel, 74, 105, 175Scripture, 34, 40, 42, 92, 108-9, 116-9,

123-4, i44> 168-9, 173, 189, 227,292, 407, 410, 415, 424, 426, 450

Scrutiny of baptizands, 34, 40, 67Second Coming, 27, 107, 125,133, 147-

53>'54> 155-7, 162-7, 283Secrecy of catechesis, 39, 72-3, 76, 124Self-moving, 212, 234, 258-9, 279-81Septuagint, 116-8, 130Sex, 73, 74, no , 113, 281, 352, 368-70Sight, 83, i n , 277, 322, 324-31, 333,

335, 358Signs, 157-8, 161-3, 167, 197,408Simmias (pupil of Socrates), 269—70Simon Magus, 65, 68, 94, 151

Sin, 75, 77-8, 80-4, #5, 110-1, 115, 166,186, 214, 417

Smell, 111, 322, 330,33', 335, 337, 35®,378

Socrates (philosopher), 225, 270, 350,353, 356, 4O9, 45i

Solomon, 159, 284, 285Soul, 109-10, 130, 181, 212, 225-6,

238, 257-93, 295-304, 312, 316, 318,319-24, 336-40, 343-7, 35O-4, 356-7,365, 371-6, 378, 382, 386, 397, 402-3, 413-4, 4!6-7, 422, 439, 444, 446

Speech, 111, 130, 142, 229, 234, 344-6,37i, 378

Sponsors, 34, 40Stoics (-ism), 212,229, 230, 231,250, 252,

256-7, 262, 263, 265-6, 268, 282,311, 315, 321, 323-4, 345, 346, 349,35i> 352, 359, 362, 398, 399, 400,404-5, 408-9, 426, 434

Susanna, 177, 384, 424Symeon bar Glopas, 55-6Syncretism, 227, 230, 339Syria (-ans), 28,109, 204, 224, 227, 238,

240, 256, 264, 275, 285, 304, 317,332,35i, 353,390,397, 4'5

Taste, i n , 322, 330-1, 335-6, 378Teleology, 237, 251, 365, 372Temperament, see HumoursTemple, 27, 57, 117, 138, 158-9, 169Thales (philosopher), 258, 260, 318Theodore (bishop of Mopsuestia,

t428), 206, 210, 237-8, 299, 303, 413Theodore (Neo-Platonist), 288, 289Theodoret (bishop of Gyrrhus, J457),

210, 254, 410, 428, 445, 452"Theotokos", 138Theriacs, 253Thucydides (historian), 361Touch, 233, 242, 322, 328-35Traducianism, 282, 284-5, 346Transmigration, 281, 287-9, 312, 446Trichotomy, 224, 225, 226-7, 230, 293Typology, 73

Understanding, 122, 224-5, 229, 296,382

Union of soul and body, 91, 109, 210,213-4, 224, 232, 237, 268, 356, 365,378, 382

Universalism, 245Universais, 213, 266, 299, 341, 387,

3^8, 393, 433, 446"Unmoved" (abstraction), 278-9, 281

Vegetative soul, 345-6Veins, i n , 364, 366-9, 374, 380Virginity, see Chastity

Virtue, see Aretology"Vital spirit", 333, 338, 366-7, 374,

376-7> 379Voluntary acts, 228, 323, 371-5, 376,

382-91

INDEXES 463

World, sensible, 80, 127, 146, 149,228-9, 230, 234, 236, 237, 245, 252,276, 280, 282-3, 3"> 3*3> 3*8, 322,356, 409, 419

World-soul, 214, 229, 252, 286-9, 298,89> 4°5> 406, 426

Word of God, 97, 101, 102-3,165, 284, 300-4

World, noetic, 80, 108, 146, 213, 228-9,230, 234, 236, 237, 277, 282, 298,505,338, 419, 444

"World rulers", 105, 139, 143, 149,212,228,245,403,419,4.33

Xenocrates, 258, 264, 280

Zeno of Cyprus, 384Zeno (Stoic), 257, 264-5, 345, 346Zenobius (architect), 47Zion, 56, 59, 169Zodiac, 408, 433

Genesis1:1 3161:1-10 921:2 921:26 134, 1461:27 (LXX) 1342:7 2382:19 803:1 420

3:i4 2423:17 2393:19 2363:21 1844:17 2434:26 1755-24 4° 8

6:2 ,., 2366:2-4 420

7:7-9 73ch. 11 24318:27 12719:24 13439:12 38441:38 17546:29 177

Exodus

3:I4 J3O20:5 41629:4 933!:i»2 17532:4 8533^3 X3533:i7 *3533:I9 !3533*20 13533:22 13534:5-9 X3636:1,2 17540:30-32 93

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Leviticus8:3 186I7:u> H 257

Numbers11:29 17419:18 90

Deuteronomy4:10 1864^5 1319:10 1869:19 869:20 8619:15 10634:9 175Joshua10:13, 14 408

Judges3:10 1756:34 1756:37 H711:29 17514:6 175

I Samuel1:12-17 741:20 749:11 176

II Samuel12:7-12 8712:13 8712:15-25 28415:30 ff.-i6:io 8823:2 176

I Kingschs. 17, 18 41617:17-24 181

II Kings2:8-11 932:11 4084:34 18113:21, 22 181I Chronicles21:1 84

II Chronicles15:1 17620:14 17624:20, 21 17626:5 17626:20 176

Nehemiah9:20 176

Job

1:5 4*51:6 and 12 841:12 4489:8 14625:5 14934:13 (LXX) 31636:27 12838:14 14638:17 1464O:i5-24 9540:26 (LXX) 964i:7 9642:7-10 448

Psalms6:6 88

464Psalms—continued7:9 79>i2i8:3 10124:7 (LXX) 14026:5 18726:5 (LXX) 18726:12 18732:1 75,7734:3 12735:18 187457 *3446:10 7349:18 (LXX) 28449:20 (LXX) 23650:18 28450:21 1485I:7 90, 16351:11 17652:8 8068:26 (LXX) 18772:6 (LXX) 14774:i4 9682:6 6988:5 13389:37 185

:n 121,415: 11 89

102:9 88102:25, 26 149104:2 147109:6 84110:1 107110:1 (LXX) 136126:5 114139:12 74143:10 176147:4 128147:14 188148:5 146149:1 l 87150:6 129Proverbs4:25 825:3 995:22 776:27 827:3 !24I2:iO 24917:6 (LXX) 12120:6 120Ecclesiastes7:29 8210:4 83Song of Solomon4:1 and 2 98

INDEXES

Isaiah1:16-20 771:18 162, 1631:19,20 1091:26 1922:3 59, 1924:4 977:9 (LXX) 122ch. 11 25311:2 (LXX) 17626:19 (LXX) 11528:16 13234:4 H940:3 9040:12 101, 17940:22 12842:1 (LXX) 17644:3 17645:9 44°45:9 (LXX) 44145:i7-25 12647:i3, 14 10948:16 17749 :I 13749:2 13749:18 (LXX) 19251:6 (LXX) 143537 13255^,2 19255:8-n 14357:i 15059:2i 17760:1 (LXX) 19260:8 (LXX) 19261:1 17761:3 25662:11 (LXX) 13663:8... ' 8563:10, n 17765:15,16 (LXX). . . . 13865:18 19266:8 192Jeremiah1:5,6 942:21 82, n o10:23 415Ezekiel11:5 17711:24 17718:20-23 811 8 : 3 1 . . . . 7728:12 and 13 8%28:13-15 25I36:25 9736:25-27 177

Ezekiel—continued37=« «7737:1-14 I78Danielch. 6 2546:23 122ch. 7 156, 1627:9 1627:10 162, 1647:13 *33, l 62, 2517:i3, 14 1657:13-27 .1477:14 133, 1627:21 1607:23 1577:24 1577:25 158, 1617:27 16712:1 16012:1-3 (LXX) 16212:2 11512:3 18412:3 (LXX) 18912:7 16112:11, 12 161Hosea4:2 149Joel2:28 1762:31 150Micah3:8 176

Zephaniah3:8 (LXX) 43

Haggai2:4,5 176

Zechariah1:6 (LXX) 1763:1 and 2 843:14 and 15 9712:10-12 19712:12 (LXX) 163

Malachi1:10, n 187

3:5 H8

Wisdom of Solomon4:*°, 11 45i7:1-14 25110:1-2 251;

Ecclesiasticus3:21,22 128

Susanna5:23

Matthew1:201:212:143:53:73*103-123-174^75:165^7

8

384

6:247:67:13 and 147:15

8

90

13713313994949594

97140"641510179

9821326

10:1610:23 I D i10:32 and 39 9511:3 10511:11-13 9311:27.. 103, 129, 136, 17311:28 7712:32 108, 16712:33 8213:15 n o13:43 18416:18 18717:2 13517:20 12318:10 12918:12 16419:29 19021:9 H722:1-14 6623:39 14824:3 151

99, J5i107

24:424:524:624:7

INDEXES

Matthew—continued24:29 14924:30 155, 163, 19724:35 150

24:42 15224:44 X5i25:1-13 7725:21 7925:31 16325:33 7825:46 18927:5^53 l 8 i28:19 169

Mark93

13932

1:242:205:7 Hi5:22-end 1819:3 16310:17-19 19010:38 9511:13, 14, 20, 21 8013:2 15915:36 90

Lukei:33 165i:44 942:11 1342:29,30 1393:22 97

87 510:18 8410:19 9611:13 43215:7 7715:20 17716:9 7816:13 9016:19-31 44820:36 11221:28 192

24:10 15224:12 15324:14 15324:15 10724:16 16024:21 16024:22 16024:23 153, 15524:24 16124:27 155

. 152 John

:io, 11:i2, 13"4

97. H3.45IH4146142

:333:33:53:8

12997

478

465John—continued3:16 1413:18 122, 1413:36 H1* 1894:24 Hi4:36 1895^7 145,2845:19 1455:22 1435^4 J22, I4I, 1895^7 1335:37 1316:46 1298:35 1658:38 1438:46 879:1-38 44910:11 13210:28-29 78ch. 11 181n:39 8512:25 J8915:1-8 8016:8-10 8716:13 10316:13, 14 17317:10 14519:29 9019:34 9520:5-9 44Acts1:7 1511:24 7o4:33 173ch. 8 948:13 658:14-18 1758:21-24 949:36-42 18310:1-8 9110:4 9110:14 12010:34-48 9115:8 7015:29 " 419:12 140, 18219:41 18720:7-12 183ch. 28 254Romans1:19 no1:28 no4 : " 755:14 1666:3-14 65,896:4 96

466Romans—continued6:7 in6:9 1666:11 68,966:19 1096:22 1907:16 1098:17 978:28 658:35~end 16011:17-24 80

":33 44616:18 99

I Corinthians1:9 69, 1202:4 1962:10 90, 108, 129, 1442:10, 11 1723:12 1483*-i2, 15 764:3 !2I4:9 954^5 H26:19 1127:5 " 37:8,9 IJ38:5-9:23 J3i9:22 13410:4 13510:11 65chs. 12-14 8012:1-7 16712:8, 9 12312:28 188H:34 7415:20 18115:25 l 6615:27,28 13615:35, i3 18315:48 23615:53 18315:55 96

II Corinthians1:3 1261:22 783:14, 15 l 6 66:2 806:7,8 18810:14, 15, 16 16611:14 98, 15111:23-30 44912:2-4 12812:7-10 448

Galatians1:8,9 1243:23,24 116

INDEXES

Galations—continued3:28 n o4:26 188

Ephesians2:10 824:5 694:22 78,944:24 785:25 1885:26 92, 1916:6 946:15 756:16 122

Philippians2:9 1343:1 1924:4 192

Colossians1:16, 17 1462:8 992:8-end 982:14 763:9---- 943:10 78

I Thessalonians4:13-16 1834^7 189

II Thessalonians2:3-10 1542:4 1582:7 1622:8 1572:9 1582:11 1612:12 1612:15 124

I Timothy3:2, 12 1133:14-16 35, 1783^5 35, l 874:3 " 45:21 1255:23 " 46:15, 16 1256:13 and 14 1256:20 167

II Timothy4:3 1554:7-8 449

Titus2:11 1483:5 191

Hebrews1:1-12 1401:2 1461:3 1732:13 812:14 953:i3 1674:i5 875:10 1375:14 1006:4 646:18 1387:i4 1377:21 1378:4 1379 : " 1389^9 90,93, 16310:22 9110:32 6411:1-31 12011:5 4°811:6 12211:26 135"••27 8711:33 I 2212:2 77, I4712:15 6612:16 11213:4 " 313:14 243James5:17, 18 416

I Peter2:24 685:8 99

II Peter1:4 . . .108, 173

I John1:9 692:22 1373:8 835-1 Hl

Revelation1:18 1332:23 795:5 X327:3 759:4 7513:1 7617:11 158